May 13, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 21


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to rule on the point of privilege raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader on May 7.

First of all, the Chair would like to reiterate what has been said on numerous occasions in this House, that a point of privilege should be raised rarely. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne §27, that in order to be the basis of a point of privilege the matter complained of must interfere with a member in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties. In making his point of privilege, the Opposition House Leader stated that he believed the hon. the Member for Port de Grave had impugned the integrity of the Commission of Members' Interest, an Officer of the House, as well as the integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

In reviewing the transcript the Chair could not find any imputation of wrongdoing or lack of integrity on the part of the Commissioner. The Member for Port de Grave stated that he was not able to find certain information. The fact that he could not find the information does not reflect on the Commissioner. There could be any number of reasons why the hon. member was not able to obtain that information.

As for the statement made in a press release, the House does not take notice of comments made outside and they cannot be the basis of a question of privilege. I refer members to Beauchesne §31(3). In respect of his comments about the Leader of the Opposition, the Chair is of the opinion that nothing the Member for Port de Grave has said amounts to an impediment to any member in carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. It is not a breach of privilege or even unparliamentary to ask whether a member has fulfilled an imposed statute or regulation. It is unparliamentary, however, to suggest unworthy motives or to cast aspersions on a member.

The Chair is satisfied that in respect of his comments about the Leader of the Opposition, the member has clarified his remarks by saying that he was not suggesting the Opposition Leader was in conflict and that he had withdrawn his unparliamentary comments "come clean", and I refer members to Hansard, May 6, page 866. In the opinion of the Chair there is no prima facie case of breach of privilege, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind all hon. members of their obligation to couch their speeches in the House in temperate language in the interest of good order and the proper flow of debate.

As well, on May 6, the hon. the Government House Leader rose on a point of order concerning words he says he heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say. The Chair took it under advisement. I have reviewed the transcript but I find no unparliamentary language and therefore there is no point of order.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to pay tribute today to an outstanding Newfoundlander and Labradorian who passed away at the early age of fifty-four on April 22 of this year. Wayne Davis lived for many years in my own district, but originally hails from Pound Cove, Bonavista Bay in the district of my college, the Member for Bonavista North.

I had the privilege of knowing Wayne and of learning from him his great love and admiration for his Newfoundland roots. As members in this House will know, he was an aspiring politician in his quest to show his passion for this Province and for the people who live here.

I would like to quote from a great friend of his, Des McGrath, who passed the following comments, "Through Wayne's introductions, I have been honored to touch the fabric of Newfoundland's seafaring history and tradition and at varied times I shook the hands that tended the engines in the Kyle, rescued the survivors of the Caribou sinking or skippered the (William) Carson. Deck hands to Master Mariners were equally well met. In recent years, I occasionally accompanied Wayne to funerals where he lamented the passing of these ‘characters' often saying

"the likes of whom we would not see again." Little did Wayne realize that he was a true character in the making himself.

Captain Wayne Davis was instrumental for setting up the Coasters Heritage Society where he continued to represent the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador's heritage and history. He was a special individual, and he will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members, I wish to extend condolences to his mother, Lillian Davis; to his sisters: Frances, Linda, Sharron; and to his brothers, Levi Jr., Bruce, Geoff and Dennis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate two exemplary citizens of my district. I was honoured to help present the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal at Government House to these fine people with His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, on March 21.

Mr. Speaker, Anthony Kelly, Sr. of Marystown is a tireless volunteer. A former employee of both National Sea Products. He spent sixteen years as a captain, and a former twenty-one year employee of the provincial Department of Fisheries. Mr. Kelly has been involved with the Knights of Columbus in Marystown since 1990 and was a founding member of the Father John Murray Assembly. He is also involved with pastoral care for Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown, and is a local organizer of the local Knights of Columbus Annual Student Speakoff Program, along with helping fundraising for the Marystown Lions Golden Age Seniors Club. He is also involved with the Marystown Heritage Museum.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Adele Pitman, better known as Mrs. Addie by all who know her, is also a very tireless volunteer. She has volunteered with the Marystown Library Board for forty-four years, thirty years with the hospital auxiliary, and works with the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Red Cross, the Heart and Stroke Foundation along with serving on the Board of Directors of the Blue Crest Interfaith Home for Seniors in Grand Bank. She has also served on the Marystown Hall Committee and also the Sacred Heart Parish Council and other volunteer organizations just too numerous to mention.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I want to congratulate Mr. Anthony Kelly, Sr. and Mrs. Addie Pittman on their volunteer efforts and receiving this prestigious award.

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.

On Sunday, May 4, I had the opportunity to attend the Annual Ceremonial Review of the 2863 Dunne Memorial Cadet Corp, St. Mary's. On Wednesday, May 7, I had the opportunity to attend the Annual Ceremonial Review of 2895 Enright Cadet Corp at St. Catherine's Academy on Salmonier Line.

Mr. Speaker, during both visits I had the opportunity to witness the top-notch performances of almost 100 young people. Their commitment to excellence, their devotion to being the best is a clear example of the guidance and support they receive from their leaders, their parents and the entire school community of St. Mary's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the cadet movement is alive and well in this Province and certainly the examples are seen in many communities. It gives the opportunity for young people to hone their skills, to travel, to work with each other and gain friendships that will last a lifetime. Many awards were presented to deserving students and individuals, and it was a pleasure to witness the healthy competition that the cadet movement brings to all parts of our Province.

I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating members of 2895 and 2893, and indeed, the entire cadet corp of Newfoundland and Labrador on another great year and a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, May 12-18 is National Mining Week throughout Canada.

I would like to recognize the contribution made by the mining industry to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. This year, approximately 2,700 people will be directly employed in the Province's mining industry, primarily as a result of increased activity at Voisey's Bay. The total value of mineral shipments is forecast to increase from $792 million last year, to $826 million in 2003.

Over a dozen mineral commodities including gold, iron ore and gypsum are produced by our miners. Industrial minerals, such as dimension stone, slate and limestone are also creating new opportunities. Labrador West continues to produce approximately 55 per cent of Canada's iron ore products.

The Voisey's Bay development will create thousands of jobs and enormous benefits for decades to come. This year, 500 to 600 people are expected to gain employment on the project with over $100 million being spent in our Province.

The Province's geology is attracting significant exploration interest. About 120 mineral exploration companies are active here and it is estimated that 20,000 claims will be staked this year. Current estimates indicate that $25 million will be spent on exploration. Exploration is being conducted in several regions including the area from Gander Bay to St. Alban's and from Badger to Gander, including the Botwood Basin, and in the area of the Golden Promise gold discovery. Areas which were staked in 2002 are now subject to a resurgence in gold exploration. These include White Bay, and the Baie Verte and Springdale Peninsulas which have great potential for future gold discoveries. As well, there is base metal exploration in the Smallwood Reservoir in Labrador, the Bonavista Peninsula, and Red Indian Lake.

The Department of Mines and Energy continues to actively encourage and support the mineral industry with informative resource data, mine engineering assistance and incentive programs. We continue to work with industry to strengthen opportunities in our mineral sector. Through our resource management activities, we ensure that our mineral resources are developed and managed in a sustainable manner.

Mr. Speaker, mining is an industry providing tremendous current benefits and great promise for our people. We appreciate the efforts of those involved, and assure them of our continuing assistance.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for his timely delivery of his statement today, and giving me a chance to read it beforehand.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we recognize, too, the importance of the mining industry in this Province. Myself, being from a mining town and a mining region, I also recognize the potential there is for mining in this Province.

Also, Mr. Speaker, throughout the statement, of course, everybody talks about Voisey's Bay, and that was the most current discussion we have had in this House, but certainly there are more to look forward to. I would say to the minister, we do look forward to the creation of thousands of jobs with Voisey's Bay and to see if it is indeed for decades to come, so that the people of this Province see the benefits from Voisey's Bay. We will be watching for that, I say to the minister.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we would like to mention today, exploration. Anybody who has anything to do with mining in this Province realizes the importance of exploration. Because of the high risk involved with mining, it is important and critical that we certainly do provide incentives so that people will go out and actually explore.

I know from the region I am in, back in the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, when we saw the Flow-Through Shares program through the federal government, in the mid-1980s there was increased exploration throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, I say to the minister, because of that particular period of time when the Flow-Through Shares were in this Province and exploration increased, the only current mine at Nugget Pond was discovered at that particular time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude by saying that we look forward to increased exploration until we see further developments in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the mining industry in our Province. Indeed, the communities that I represent are based solely on the mining industry. The minister refers, in his statement, that 55 per cent of the iron ore pellets produced in Canada are from Labrador West and the other 45 per cent, I say to the minister, are produced next door in Mount Wright and Fermont where the activities there lend greatly to the economic well-being of Labrador as well.

Mr. Speaker, on the Voisey's Bay development, I sincerely hope that the adjacency principle will be applied; that it will, in fact, work the way the people in Labrador want it to work. I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that while we proclaim Mining Week -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I would like to point out, just by comments, Mr. Speaker, that while we acclaim Mining Week, I have to point out to the government and draw their attention to the fact that with the great development at Voisey's Bay and with all the good things that can happen, the regimes that are in place for that development will still see this Province over the twenty-five year life of that project only receive $411 million while Ottawa, on the other hand, receives $4.9 billion. If we are going to take full advantage, Mr. Speaker, we have to have better policies in place than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last Thursday, in this House, Mr. Speaker, the Premier introduced a resolution regarding joint management of the fishery and seeking constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, it is my prediction that tomorrow this House, all forty-eight members, will unanimously support such a resolution. From our own point of view, we have long sought, as a party, the exact same proposal and the exact same solution to a greater degree of control over our natural resources, which will lead, obviously, to a more self-reliant and self-determining society.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, in an interview on Sunday with CTV's question period - I have a copy of it here - the Premier said that he would first talk with federal officials before reopening the constitutional Pandora's box.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier this question: Could he explain what he meant by saying he would first talk to federal officials before reopening Pandora's box? What did the Premier have in mind when he uttered those comments to the press on Ottawa over the weekend?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the information of the Opposition House Leader, I wasn't in Ottawa over the weekend, I was here all weekend dealing with these issues. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what I didn't say was what the Leader of the Opposition said, which was suggesting that they did support the resolution and will support it tomorrow, but in the meantime suggesting that the timing was wrong, that maybe there should be an administrative arrangement instead, maybe something that Premier Doer had conjectured about when asked about it, that might be the right answer instead of it.

What I have said is this: We want to do exactly what the resolution calls for, and I invite the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, to read the resolution.

It says: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly ask us to begin a negotiation of the Terms of Union to see if we can arrive at a position whereby joint management can be given to Newfoundland and Labrador and constitutionally enshrined. It lays out steps, Mr. Speaker, the first of which is to begin a negotiation with respect to our Terms of Union with Canada.

What I was responding to, Mr. Speaker, as everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows, is that the federal government representatives have already jumped to the end conclusion to say: Well, it might be difficult to change the Constitution, so we don't intend to speak to you at all. All I was reminding people, Mr. Speaker, is that our resolution that we will debate fully tomorrow says: Authorize this House, authorize the government, to begin a negotiation. Our objects are to change the Terms of Union and have it constitutionally enshrined.

You can't deal with any of that if you have a federal government that says: We do not want to talk to you. Do not come to Ottawa. The circumstance is, the next thing you know representatives on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not only be dismissed in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, will have to get permission to go there in the first place. So, I am just trying to make it clear that we have laid out a process in the resolution. We hope to get all members to support it tomorrow and then we will go down the road of the negotiations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - on Terms of Union hopefully leading to a constitutional enshrinement of joint management.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the Premier taking the opportunity to clear up what was in the Ottawa press because the article led to a suggestion, I suppose, that there were other options other than a constitutional amendment.

Let me ask the Premier this question. Over the past thirty years, and indeed, over the past fifty, there have been many models suggested about what joint management would be, what joint management could be, and what it would involve. Let me ask him this question: What menu of options is the Premier considering in terms of a model for joint management? Does it involve - what a former Premier, and which he was part of the Cabinet of - turning over licensing issues to this joint management board constitutionally enshrined? Does it mean turning over all issues related to, whether it be fisheries loans and others in the Province, to a joint management board and the federal government doing the same? What models is the Premier suggesting or menu of options does he consider or have considered to present to the federal government and to other provinces in the country?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would ask the Opposition House Leader and everyone in the Province, be patient. This is the longer-term goal, Mr. Speaker. Our efforts today are really focused on something that they do not seem to want to talk about anymore, which is getting the EI extension immediately for people who are out there not fishing today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see they are very sensitive about this. They have about five or six different positions on the issue because they do not know where they stand on this matter like they don't with most others.

Mr. Speaker, the real focus for us is the immediate concerns that our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was in Ottawa dealing with again yesterday, and that I have been dealing with Minister Byrne and others with respect to the circumstance right now, this year, and a decision that is still in place that is the wrong decision and needs to be reversed.

What we are looking at is a longer-term solution, that we all recognize, that when you go down the road to asking the Government of Canada to engage in a serious process of changing the Terms of Union, you do not accomplish that overnight. It takes a lot of work, a lot of detailed effort and we will lay out for the people of the Province every single one of them, exactly what it is we will propose. But what we have to get over first, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit of a hurdle - I describe it that way to be kind to our friends in Ottawa - whereby as soon we mention we would like to come forward -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - with the approval of this Legislature and have a negotiation, they say: Don't come to Ottawa, I do not want to talk about it; and the Prime Minister saying: I am certainly not going to talk about it because I am leaving in nine months. I do not care how important it is to Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we are hardly in a position yet, Mr. Speaker, to be talking here about what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - it is we are going to propose. We have to shake loose the people in Ottawa so that they will respect us and speak to us in the first instance, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, the Premier stood up yesterday, and he does again today, and shouts out: We are not interested in the immediate short-term solution of EI extensive; when the very question the hon. Member for Bonavista South asked yesterday, it was the Premier who said: You are asking the wrong House. You cannot have it both ways, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What people want to know from you and we all have a right to know, each and everyone of us in the Province and in this Legislature, is that obviously there was some thought and some strategy that had gone into the process of asking and seeking a constitutional amendment, enshrining forever the notion that we could have joint say over the fisheries management in the Province, which we support.

People want to know, what options have you and your government considered? Is it similar to what former Premier Wells, and you as a member of that Cabinet - the Premier was a member of that Cabinet - suggested at the time or is it something different? Will it look like - or what is the Premier suggesting - will it look something like the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, or are there other options on the menu when the Premier discusses with federal officials of what he and his government are proposing to be constitutionally enshrined? That is the question that people want answered. We all understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is the long-term objective, everyone supports that objective. What we want to know now is how the Premier plans to get there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the approval, in advance, for tomorrow's resolution. I accept that and very much appreciate the full support for the notion that we start a negotiation. For clarification, yesterday I did mention that when somebody in the Opposition benches asks our Minister of Human Resources and Employment when will the EI extension be approved, he is asking in the wrong Legislature. It is not our decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: That can only be answered by a minister in the Parliament of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and we want to get the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So let's not misrepresent what I say in this House. I know they try hard, but they usually fail.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would suggest again that it is not the burning issue and question on the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today as to what model of joint management we might be going to seek from the Government of Canada. That is not what is on people's minds today.

We have an immediate problem with respect to the fishery and an announcement that we have to get changed and proper compensation put in place. That is on people's minds today, and they understand that there is a lot of time and lots of time to have a full debate about what model, if we get over the first hurdle. We have to get over the first hurdle, which is significant, which is a government in Ottawa in the nation's capital that says, even if we passed the resolution tomorrow, they do not intend to speak to anybody from Newfoundland and Labrador about changing our Terms of Union this week, within the next nine months. That is what they have said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: So we want the full support and need it, Mr. Speaker, to get them to come to their senses so we can start the negotiation, and we will gladly lay out what it is we are going to try to accomplish if we can get them to talk to us in the first instance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two burning issues in this Province today and they are both related. The immediate short-term solution is immediate help for people impacted by the decision. The day after that decision was made, our leader talked about it, and that Premier condemned him. The burning issue associated with that is how we are being treated by the federal government. To separate them is wrong and unjustified, and the people of the Province know the difference. What the people of the Province want to know is, how serious this Premier is. They want to know how serious this government is, in launching a strategy of trying to get more say over provincial matters, and the questions that we are asking today is asking that very question, Mr. Speaker. How serious is this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask this question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: What are his department and officials within his department doing? What did they do leading up to the announcement and the resolution provided by the Premier? Are they preparing draft papers for their provincial counterparts? Has the minister talked to his other counterparts in other provinces who are responsible for interprovincial relations? If so, what are they saying? When did he talk to them, and will they support the resolution and the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition House Leader can raise his voice if he likes; it is not going to impress anybody, I am sure. One of the oldest tactics in the book is, if you don't have an argument just speak louder. If you don't have any point to make, just raise your voice.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this. He talked about me condemning the Leader of the Opposition the day after the announcement, and so he should have been condemned. One full week after the announcement was made, the Leader of the Opposition admitted, on an evening newscast, that he had not called for the reversal of the decision; that the day after he did say: The decision is final and I would like to work on the compensation.

Now they do not like to hear that, but those are the facts. Those words came out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, not me. Now there are back on side now and we are glad to have the support. They have seen the light again. They have seen the will of the people, that they want this done.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you for a fact, the problem is not how serious we are; the problem is how serious they are. When the Leader of the Opposition goes on the national media and says to a national audience - the Opposition party, through their leader - don't mind the government down here. The timing is all wrong. They are only doing it for an election and they are not really serious.

That is what he said to a national audience. That is how much support he is giving to these issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. We are dead serious. We will have the debate tomorrow for the longer term. Today, we are still focusing on trying to get a right and proper and just decision made for the short term this year, because these things are for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, two weeks after the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Fisheries critic, announced that the immediate concern of people who were impacted was licence buyout, early retirement and extension of the UI, two weeks after that, the Minister of Fisheries, provincially, followed suite. So if we want to talk about the record then let's make it clear.

Back to the seriousness of the issue. Mr. Speaker, if we, as a Province or as a people, hope, and we all hope and plan to have a greater say, a constitutional enshrinement of a greater say in the management of the fishery, then people need to know and people have a right to know in terms of the government's strategy and how we get there.

I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs this question: What sort of relationships have you built? What relationships are you building? How have you briefed your counterparts? What have they said?

For example, Mr. Speaker, are the majority of premiers you have contacted in support of Newfoundland's legitimate and rightful quest for a greater say in the management of resources, and can you expect seven premiers plus 51 per cent of the population to support our legitimate claim?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just two points in response. One is that we have full respect for the House of Assembly. We do not presume that the debate has already taken place tomorrow and the vote has been held. So, Mr. Speaker, what we do is, we have made contacts with other jurisdictions. We have given them information with respect to the notice that we have given. We have given notice that a debate will occur in the Province. We cannot presume. Glad to have the assumption today and the encouragement from the Opposition House Leader that they will vote for it tomorrow, but our steps would be that after it is voted on in the House we will provide them all the details. After. We have given them notice that there is a resolution. They have gotten copies of that. We will give them the notice.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, too, that we do have - because a former Premier of the Province surfaced again today in a letter to the editor, being very supportive for Newfoundland and Labrador, very supportive of the Province of which he used to be the leader, raising the same issues, usually done so at the urging of the Leader of the Opposition. He usually calls him and asks him to write a letter to the editor.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this, the government does have all the papers, all the background and all the arguments that Premier Peckford had twenty-three years ago, when he now writes to the local paper and says: I had the support of all of the provinces.

The information that he used to secure the support of all of the provinces then -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - he was so proud to say, we have that. That happens to be government information. That is not personal information to somebody. We have that and when the motion is passed tomorrow - I will be that presumptuous - we will gladly present the cases to everybody in Canada, build the support and enhance our chances for success, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Premier has talked about, certainly since last Thursday, that he has had discussions with a number of his counterparts, other premiers across the country. The questions that we are asking today are very simple, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier, in view of the fact that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will not answer - and he is under no requirement to; it is up to the government who answers the question, and I understand that - but in view of the fact that the Premier has said himself, publicly, that he has discussions with other premiers, will he take the opportunity to inform this House, and through this House the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, what type of support, what type of encouragement, and what type, I guess, at the end of the process - what is his sense of where the other premiers are in supporting our legitimate and our bona fide claim to joint management of the fisheries, enshrined constitutionally? What has been the response from other premiers across the country, who he admits himself that he has talked to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, had been following any of the reported media, he would understand that on a general principle basis, because we have not provided them the details yet because there has been no vote in this Legislature yet, that in fact he would understand that the Premier of Ontario has indicated that they have some understanding and great sympathy for what Newfoundland and Labrador is trying to accomplish. The Intergovernmental Affairs Minister for Quebec has said the same thing. The Premier of Alberta has said the same thing. The Premier of Nova Scotia has said the same thing. They said that while they may not be fully willing to change the Constitution at this point, they certainly have grievances with the government in Ottawa. The believe the relationship should change and they believe in the fundamental principle that those closest to the resource should have a real say in its management.

So, Mr. Speaker, it has been very encouraging words from across the country to date. Even on a very preliminary basis, without the work that we will do and the same kind of work that was done successful, I am glad to report, by former Premier Peckford - because all that work that he did is available to the government and he succeeded to have every single province in Canada support the notion of jurisdiction for those people who are actually closest to and own the resource. I am sure that every member opposite would hope that we end up with the same result at the end of a process that we are going to begin after we respect this Legislature enough to at least have the debate and wait for the affirmative vote that I understand will occur tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, yesterday, was in Ottawa on meetings related to the closure of the Northern and Gulf cod fisheries. Many in the fishing industry, and the general public, are eager to find out if there is any progress being made on the reopening of the fishery, on compensation issues, such as an extension of EI for those affected adversely by adverse ice conditions, and on licence and early retirement programs.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us a full update on those meetings, whom she has met with and has any progress been made on these very important issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, actually I am just returning from my meetings in Ottawa and I would like to say to the member opposite that there was a broad range of aspects of this cod fishery closure that I have discussed with Minister Thibault and also some discussions with Minister Byrne. We were able to, certainly, put some options to the federal minister. Our position is that we want to see this fishery open. We want to see people on the water this year. Mr. Speaker, we have opened a dialogue with the federal minister to try and facilitate that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in her answer just then, indicated that she had opened a dialogue with the minister. I have a copy of the ministerial statement that I had expected her to read here today, just delivered, just before the House opened. It said: "Mr. Speaker, I have also opened dialogue with Gerry Byrne, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on economic development initiatives."

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: What has happened in the last three weeks? Three weeks ago we suggested that there needed to be a dialogue on economic development initiatives. We suggested three weeks ago in a press conference -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - when the minister and the Premier all maligned and mocked us for suggesting that we needed an economic development agreement to help those affected by the closure of this fishery.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened? The question to the minister is this: Has there been a full-court press for the last three weeks by this government with the federal government on these issues? Or, Mr. Speaker, is it as the minister just said, that they finally opened a dialogue yesterday on these important issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member has been in the same Province that I have been in for the last three weeks, but I can honestly tell him this: There has been full-court press, there has been continuous representation by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: What the hon. member seems to have forgotten, Mr. Speaker, is this: That the federal government closed the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador with no offers of adjustment measures for the people of the Province, and the full-court press has been trying to get this fishery open and get fair and adequate compensation for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where the full-court press has been. The full-court press has been by the Premier running around this Province politicizing, not in Ottawa where it should have been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks in communities like Green Island Brook -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member get to his question, please.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, over the course of the last three weeks in communities like Green Island Brook on the Northern Peninsula, a community of 180 people, sixty-five people have made up their minds that in the next two weeks they are going to leave, Mr. Speaker. That is what is happening in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: What proposals have she put forward to the federal government? What proposals have they put forward for economic development initiatives? What proposals have they put forward on early retirement? Have they asked the federal government to fund an early retirement program that will enable people to retire with a combination of their years' work and their age? Something like that is supported by the industry. Those are the questions I would like to have answered today, not rhetoric from this government on what they are going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, no one understands more fully what the impact of this fishery closure is on the people and the communities in this Province than this minister does. I will say that to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We fully realize the tremendous suffering and sacrifice that people are going through out there in those communities today. That is why we have put everything on hold. I have, as a minister, to deal with this issue entirely, giving it my full attention, Mr. Speaker, every single day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I would say to the hon. member across, because he criticizes the fact that you would support people in your Province. Well, I want to say to the hon. member, this is a government that believes in representing people; this is a government that believes in pushing fully their issues at a time when it needs to be pushed; and this is a government that believes in standing with its people and supporting them at a critical time in their history, and we intend to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health, or the minister responsible for Labrador, and it concerns the cost of accessing health care within Labrador.

I want to know why residents of Labrador West have been discriminated against for years. The hospital in Goose Bay is the regional hospital, and it is quite common for people who live in all areas of Labrador to be referred there for services not available in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, people who live in Labrador West over the years have paid airfares ranging from $400 to over $800 to go to Goose Bay for medical reasons. Will the minister explain to the people of Labrador West why they pay those rates for air travel while every other resident of Labrador, in every community, can fly to Goose Bay for medical reasons for $40 return? Will the minister also confirm that residents of Goose Bay can fly to St. Anthony for medical reasons at a cost of $40 dollars return, while people in Labrador West have to pay almost $700?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the question. It is a very serious question that he has raised. Certainly, I don't have the answer for you today, but I can assure you my deputy minister is on the way to Labrador City for meetings, working on some issues that we promised the people in Lab West we would deal with. I will personally call him and ask him to speak to Mayor Jim Farrell who I do believe is the Chair of the Labrador Health Board, to advise him of the situation, have a discussion with him and get back to me. I will then take it to my colleague, the Minister of Health.

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.

While the minister may appreciate the question, I certainly don't appreciate that answer.

Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for years. This has been kept from the people in Labrador West, the rates that other people in Labrador pay. It has been kept, intentionally, I would suggest, from them.

When will the minister, and will the minister, confirm that the people in Labrador West will, in the future, have the same medical rates available to them as everybody else in Labrador, and will he go even further and reimburse the people who have paid these higher rates, the extra costs that they incurred as a result?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Member for Labrador West that during the April break, myself and the Premier traveled to Labrador West. We talked with different groups. We certainly had discussions on some issues that they felt were affecting the area of Labrador West. We are now working on these files. They talked of the difficulty in getting people out to a funeral. Certainly the issue of health care was not mentioned to us during that time. Certainly, it is new to me and you can rest assured that my deputy will talk with the Chair of the Labrador Health Board and certainly he will get back to me. I will then sit down and discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time this session I stand to table an annual report which pertains to the operation of the Department of Government Services and Lands, a report concerning the operation of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Utilities from the period, April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003. It has been completed as required by section 56, subsection (1) of the Automobile Insurance Act.

I am extremely pleased to be part of a government which has made openness and accountability a fundamental pillar of our day-to-day operations. The past two years has been a period in which this Province has seen a greater commitment to accountability than has ever been experienced here before. The naming of the Citizens' Representative, new financial reporting mechanisms, new Freedom of Information legislation and tabling of annual reports are just a few of the initiatives we have adopted over the past two years. We will continue this process because we feel that the people of the Province have the right to be aware of the operations of the government and its elected representatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the 2002 annual report of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. This annual report highlights the activities of the Commission through 2002 and further reflects a continued commitment to assist injured workers, employers, labour, government and health care workers throughout the workers' compensation system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act No. 2." (Bill 16)

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to a Ministerial Statement that he had received from the Minister of Fisheries. I wonder if the House would revert back to Ministerial Statements and allow the minister to give her statement? She has just gotten off the airplane -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Okay, alright.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister Responsible for Fisheries and Aquaculture, I want to provide the House with an overview of discussions with the federal government yesterday concerning the closure of 2J3KL and 3Pn4RS cod fisheries and its impact on the economy of this Province.

I met with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Robert Thibault, to discuss the closure of the cod fishery and to outline adjustment measures required to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians affected by this decision.

Mr. Speaker, I emphasized that we want to see the cod fishery reopened. We do not agree with the decision to close the fishery and we are asking for more analysis particularly on the Gulf cod stock.

I proposed that the federal minister review the commercial log books of the fishers that were omitted from the recent scientific analysis of the Gulf cod stock. In addition, we want DFO to complete an early review of the sentinel fishery results for this year and we want this review completed by the end of June. This will ensure due consideration to information from our fishers who feel the stocks are healthier than science has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, I also discussed with Minister Thibault the requirement to reduce capacity in the industry and the importance of ensuring that adequate early retirement and voluntary buy back of licence options be included. The minister has indicated that he will look at these components.

Mr. Speaker, I have also met with Minister Gerry Byrne, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on economic development initiatives. The Province has requested the federal government immediately address the short-term needs of individuals and identify long-term economic programs to assist in the survival of our rural communities.

Discussions with both ministers included the Shrimp Management Plan, particularly in light of the effects of the closure of the cod fishery and crab quota reductions on harvesters and processors.

Mr. Speaker, we are also very aware of the immediate impact of ice conditions, and the closure of the cod fishery on harvesters and processors. Employment Insurance benefits need to be extended and we have requested that both Minister Thibault and Minister Byrne deal with this issue as quickly as possible. An Employment Insurance bridging program is needed to support these individuals, some of whom have been without an income since April.

Mr. Speaker, the impacts of the closure of the cod fishery are immediate and we need this decision reversed. Ottawa has mismanaged the fishery for over fifty years and the people of this Province are now feeling the brunt of this mismanagement. I am hopeful that the discussions held yesterday will lead to successful resolutions to these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits and White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we, on this side of the House, have no problem supporting everything that the minister said in her statement. We do call on Ottawa again to reconsider their decision to close the fishery in the Gulf and on the Northeast Coast. We believe there certainly needs to be a fishery at some level, whether it is 3,500 tons or 7,000 tons, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in particular, because without it many communities cannot make it.

In the short term, Mr. Speaker, on the economic development, on EI, on early retirement, on licence retirement, there is an urgent need to get progress reported on these initiatives. As I said in Question Period, there are 180 people in Green Island Brook, of which sixty-five people are planning to leave within the next two weeks; nine leaving today. You know, one-third of that community is going to disappear over the next two weeks. Our communities - there are many Green Island Brooks around the Northeast Coast, the Northwest Coast, the Southwest Coast and Souther Labrador, so I would suggest to the minister that, while she says in her Ministerial Statement that she has opened the dialogue with Mr. Byrne yesterday, I say that it is very, very unfortunate. I do not know where the blame lies, whether the blame lies on that side of the House or in Ottawa, but it does not matter now where the blame lies. It is time for people to get to the table, discuss these issues and get a resolution in the short term and long term for the people who are affected by the closure, or a reduced quota in these areas.

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.

Clearly there is an urgent need to reverse the decision of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and also to ensure that we have the protection, the extension of EI, the new programs for people, anybody whose fishing will be reduced, and whose income will be reduced by any level of closure.

What I find interesting about the statement of the minister is her last sentence. She says, "I am hopeful the discussions held yesterday will lead to successful resolutions to these issues." We did not really hear why the minister is hopeful. If she said she was hoping it would, I would understand it, but why is the minister hopeful? What reason does she have to be hopeful? Has it been indicated by Minister Thibault that there will be, in fact, a change in this? What reason can she bring to this House as to why she is hopeful that there will be a successful resolution to these issues?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

We will now go back to our Routine Proceedings.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of many residents in my district. The prayer of the petition reads as follows, Mr. Speaker:

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 ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Centre area hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 90 St. Mary's Bay;

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highways Safety Act to protects 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 government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of several petitions I have presented here in the House on behalf of people who travel and live on Route 90 in St. Mary's Bay. Certainly, after being in the area several times over the past couple of weeks to attend different functions such as the annual review of the cadet corps of Dunne Memorial on Sunday, May 4, there is no doubt about it that the road is in desperate need of repairs and maintenance and recapping.

The concerns that have been raised with me and with the minister through letters to the minister, Mr. Speaker, have to do with a safety issue. Not to sound repetitive, but I think it is important that we continue to deliver the message to the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation on behalf of the people of St. Mary's Bay that the condition of the road certainly has made for some unsafe and unsatisfactory road conditions.

I guess that is the purpose of the petition coming before us today in the House. It is one of several I have been asked to present here, to put the message forward that this road has been for many, many years now without needed repairs and maintenance that it requires to bring it up to a safe standard and a standard where people who are travelling on buses, in ambulances or in their own regular vehicles, Mr. Speaker, have the opportunity to drive over a safe road.

Many parts of this road now are full of major holes in the pavement and people have to steer away, Mr. Speaker. In talking to a bus driver in the area on the weekend, he tells me that it is unsafe when you are travelling with a bus load of seventy-two schoolchildren and you have to be swerving away from holes in the road. It certainly creates, or has the potential to create, some very unsafe conditions.

It is not only this part of my district, Mr. Speaker, that is in need of work and road repair. It is throughout the district, Mr. Speaker, up through St. Mary's Bay just outside the Town of North Harbour, between North Harbour and Colinet -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment to finish up, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly there are conditions throughout the Cape Shore area and the road down to the community of Point Lance in over the Cape Shore area, in through the Town of Placentia and down the Fox Harbour access road, Mr. Speaker.

We are waiting for the minister to make the decisions in regard to the road work this year. Through raising these petitions in the House and certainly from the people in this situation here - Route 90, St. Mary's Bay - we hope that the minister will take into consideration the issues that I have raised here on behalf of those people, and certainly the safety concern that the people have raised as the number one priority that they have. Hopefully the minister will take into consideration the issues and will find some necessary funding to address the concerns these people have raised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present the third installment of a petition dealing with the MRI facility which is being proposed. I will simply read the prayer of the petition.

Whereupon the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland and Labrador resolve that Magnetic Resonance Imaging equipment must be purchased by the provincial government and established at Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook to serve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third installment of a petition which was gathered in the Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland region over a period of ten days. The petitions keep coming in from the outlying areas and different parts of the Province, the Northern Peninsula, and with the 280 names on the petition here today, Mr. Speaker, that brings now to 21,516 names added to a petition calling for a fixed MRI in the City of Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back very briefly. As you may recall, on April 30, a group of doctors convened here in the City of St. John's. Some twenty-one actually, twenty-one doctors, technologists and board representatives, met to provide government with some information as to where best to locate this particular facility. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the group were not able to arrive at a consensus and they were not able to provide a recommendation for government to follow. However, there was a very strong consensus from the group and they did make a recommendation in the following terms: that they would support, and the Province should support and commit to a provincial plan for MRI services within the Province for three to five additional units over the next three to five years. That was the recommendation that came from the doctors and from the technologists.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health and Community Services already indicated, that committee will be reconvened, as a matter of fact, two weeks from the date that it dispersed on April 30, so on or about the middle of May that group will reconvene to receive government's response to their recommendation and then to provide, clearly, a definition that the Province should follow.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to claim that no decision has been made as to whether it is going to be a mobile or a fixed MRI. No decision has been made, contrary to a number of rumors circulating in the Corner Brook area and which are found currently, today, in The Western Star, the local newspaper.

What has been decided very clearly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member' time is up.

MR. MERCER: Just a second to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: What has been decided very clearly, Mr. Speaker, is that the group of twenty-one health care professionals will reconvene on or about the middle of May to consider government's response to their recommendations, and at that time we look forward to a consensus coming forward with a recommendation as to whether it should be mobile or fixed. We hope that decision, from the perspective of the 21,500 signatures, that this will be a fixed unit located in the City of Corner Brook.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from Grand Bank and Fortune, and they deal with the topic of providing a co-payment drug plan for people of the Province. I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new MS drug therapies; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 and $3,600 a month; and

WHEREAS all other citizens in the Canadian provinces can receive assistance with these high cost MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs that are not limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with MS and other diseases;

We, the undersigned, petitioned the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or a sliding scale program for these drugs so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing programs can get financial assistance with these drugs, as is the case in every other Canadian province.

Mr. Speaker, I have risen many time in this House and addressed this issue. Unfortunately, government has still not seen fit to implement a plan that will improve the quality of life for people in the Province who suffer from MS and the other diseases that I referred to, and they have not seen fit to give to people of the Province any financial relief in this area. It is unfortunate that this government would allow and force hardworking people of this Province down to a financial burden where they have to exhaust all of their financial means in order to purchase a drug that is necessary to treat the disease that they are affected by. I think it is unfortunate, and it does not speak very well of this government to be the only jurisdiction in this country that does not have a co-payment plan in place. Hardworking people of this Province should not have to reduce themselves to income-support levels before this government will step in.

Mr. Speaker, I think this government would also be wise to recognize that these drugs can enhance the quality of life for these patients, leading to a better quality of life for them for a longer period of time. It is time this government faced the reality that without these drugs government is going to pay in the long run anyway because many of these people will be institutionalized at a very early age. So, government is going to be on the hook financially one way or the other. Isn't it better, I say to them, that they come up with the co-payment plan which will allow people to have a better quality of life and spend their money in that area to help people rather than be forced to at the end?

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when people of this Province have to choose, have to make a conscious choice between their family's well-being or purchase -

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. COLLINS: It is unfortunate that people of this Province have to make a conscious decision to purchase a drug they need to treat their disease, or to have the ability to provide financially for their family. It is a position that people should not find themselves in, in this day and age, and it does not say much for this government when we are able to point out to them that, in fact, the only province in the country which inflicts this financial hardship upon their citizens is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before calling this specific order, I move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you going to get up on Orders of the Day now?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair is waiting so he can put the motion.

It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. and at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, today.

All those in favour, ‘aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

Committee of the Whole

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

Committee of Supply - Estimates - Consolidated Fund Services, Legislature and Executive Council.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I have some questions on the Office of Executive Council. I understand the minister or somebody will provide some specific answers to these questions based on the Estimates. Of course, Executive Council is one of the areas that is not done outside the House in Estimates, it is done within the House. I have some specific questions here on this particular one.

My first question - I will give the minister a second if she needs to tune into it. In section 2.2.02., that is Economic and Social Policy Analysis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: On page 15 in the Estimates book. It says: Economic and Social Policy Analysis. Appropriates provide for planning support for the Economic and Social Policy Committees of Cabinet through analysis and advice on future directions in economic and social policy matters and rural revitalization issues.

Now the salaries listed here in this shows $426,900 in salaries. If you look in the Departmental Salary Details -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What section are you on?

MR. SULLIVAN: Section 2.2.02.01 Salaries, page 15 in the Estimates book. The heading is Economic and Social Policy Analysis.

I am wondering, why would there be $426,900 in Salaries? That is an increase of about $80,000 from last year. When we look on page 5 in the Salary Details booklet we will find an amount that is significantly less there. I think it shows just $249,896. Why would that be significantly less under that area there, if the minister could tell us? The Salary Details, I know, lists the permanent employees. Would we have almost $200,000 or $180,000 of temporary employees over and above the $249,000 that are listed in Salary Details as permanent there? Why the large difference? Secondly, why is there $80,000 more budgeted this year in Salaries under that area than was expended last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The rationale for the decrease in the number was because we had a number of positions vacant for the year. So, with those positions being filled in the coming year, plus with the normal salary increases, that would account for the increase from $406,000 to $426,000 this year.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are five permanent salaries listed in the Details book. Could the minister tell us how many salaries are included in that $426,900? How many are permanent now, and how much money? I think it is difficult always to tell the number of temporary because they may be on for an extended period or so on, but at least how many are permanent and what is the dollar value that is allocated to temporary staff under this particular item here in the Budget?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The allocation is for five permanent positions. Temporary assistance, which again I think is, as you pointed out, very difficult to determine, and also some overtime, that is what those amounts allocated are, based on five permanent positions.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Would the minister be able to give me the amount that is estimated in overtime versus temporary? The permanent ones are about $250,000; that leaves about $176,000, roughly, or $177,000 between temporary and overtime. What is the breakdown on that between temporary and overtime?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

The bulk of it is for the five permanent positions, one of which was not filled this year, as I pointed out, so that is why there is a differentiation between the current budget and the revised budget. I can get you the breakdown of the permanent positions and the difference between the two of those.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The question I asked there was not necessarily on the revised. On the Salary Details booklet on page 10 it shows basically there is about $250,000 in the five permanent salaries. That is under Economic and Social Policy Analysis, there are five positions in this area. Now, if there are five positions that are permanent for about $250,000, we have this year budgeted $427,000 rounded off. That is $177,000 extra. I am allowing the five positions in that $250,000 I am wondering, with the $177,000 difference, how many might be temporary, how many might be overtime?

My rationale for asking that is, if significant overtime costs are fairly high, maybe the number of positions - if we are paying out more in overtime than we would pay in a position and what those costs are, it would be interesting to know for comparison. Because most other salaries within Executive Council, when you look at them, there is not a big discrepancy between the total number of permanent salary wise and temporary. Temporary is only a smaller part of it. The temporary here in overtime is $177,000 over $426,000. That is 40 per cent more than the salary budget. That is not normally the case in these other items, in other headings here, subheadings, throughout the budget. That is why I am particularly interested. Why is it such a higher percentage above it in this case? I think a breakdown of that $177,000 would be able to give me that answer.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I think I already answered in the previous question that I would be happy to identify the number. I have the actual amount as $170,000 for the temporary employees. There is no overtime allocation at all. As to the number of employees, if that is four or six, because they are probably hired at different times during the year for different projects, I have already said that I would be happy to provide that for him.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I look forward to getting that proposed breakdown. I would be interested in knowing, too, historically, last year the revised 2002-2003, out of the $342,600 how much of that was overtime, for example, and how much in temporary employees?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: There was no overtime at all in this budget. That is what I just said. I just answered the question. There is no overtime this year, only temporary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not ask that question, I say to the minister.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, you did.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Hansard will show what I asked. I asked, in 2002-2003, which is not this budget -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible). You want last year's Estimates.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not think the minister is following. What I indicated first, I asked for this year and you said there is none. Then I said, to give me some insight, if we look at 2002-2003, could the minister give me, out of that figure of $342,600 last year, how much of that was for permanent employees, how much was overtime, and how much was temporary on that. That is already done and recorded. We do not need to speculate on that. That is now a part of the record, so that number should be provided.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it is. Generally, we deal with the budget year at hand when you ask questions. I have answers to the questions for this fiscal year, but I do not have all of the retrospective numbers for all the previous years. As I have said to you, there is no overtime that was paid out in this year. It is for temporary employees, but I will endeavor to get you the information with the breakdown on the number of temporary employees that figure refers to. I would be happy to do that for you and I will present it to the House.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am not asking for all the other years. When you present a budget, this Estimates book was presented and in this it shows the budget for 2003-2004 and it shows the revised figures for 2002-2003. In this House in the past, in the Estimates Committees on which I sat, I have asked questions comparing your last revised one to see why it is higher. That has been traditional. That has always been done. We have compared last year to this year because we have a comparative figure to look at.

The minister should have, and be able to answer, where the $342,600 - and it should be provided, I am not asking for the year before, or three years ago. The one that she filed and tabled as a part of this Budget here, that has figures on it. I just wanted to get an answer as to the ratio there between permanents, temporaries and overtime for last year, the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003. If the minister could provide that, please?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I already answered it. I said I would provide the information I have.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister indicated that she does not have figures for all the previous years. I am not asking for that. I just said -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You just said all that, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: And I will say it again, I say to the minister. I will say it again because the minister - first of all, she is not following parliamentary procedure, but I will not get hung up on that point.

The minister should have, and other ministers had it in their estimates, and I have been at estimates in the past where they were available. The book that was tabled by you as part of the Budget Speech list figures here, and I expect the minister to be able to tell us on last year what they spent in each area. It is listed. It is part of the document you put before this House and before the public. I should be able to find out under Salaries item, under Economic and Social Policy Analysis, how much of the money is recorded and spent, and over and done with, of the $342,600 is permanent, how much was paid for temporary, and how much was paid for overtime?

If you cannot tell that, what is the point of running through this process? It is futile if you cannot justify a figure that is here and cannot give it on some that has past. I am not asking you to predict. The most recent statistics available, that is what we compare in budgeting from one year to the next and look at historic trends here. If the minister - I would ask her again if she can provide that? I would certainly like to have it because in the past we have been provided with this information when we have asked it, historically, on these particular items.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I already said to the member opposite I would be happy to provide the information. I will give you all the information that I have, but honestly, I do not think anybody out there would expect that you can give the individual breakdown and the calculations for this year and last year. I said I would certainly get it for you. I have no difficulty getting it for you. I will answer every question to the best of my ability but, in all fairness, I have never - other than the numbers that were in the book for this year and last year. If you want more of a detailed breakdown, I am only too happy to go to the officials and ask them to provide it. Not a problem. No need to do a speech on it, Madam Chair, only too happy to do it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do not see why the secrecy is automatically happening. My colleagues in estimates to other ministers this year - and we have asked in the House in the past. If the minister cannot stand and tell us that we spent $342,600 in salaries and cannot tell us if they were permanent, temporary or overtime - I am amazed. That is a right that we have. That is what this process here is all about in this House, Madam Chairperson, and we should have that information.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I do not know what the member is getting on about. I said I would only be too happy to give him the information. He is up talking about secrecy. I do not know what it is, if it is a carryover from last night's soliloquy or what, but I am only too happy to give any information.

Now, I can tell you that of this year, of the $426,000 that was spent, five positions are permanent, temporary assistants relates to $170,700, and there is $6,304 for permanent and other adjustments related to salaries.

Now, if he wants the exact number of people for this year and last year, I am only too happy to provide it, but I do not have with me, today, the record of every temporary employee that worked this year and last year. I am only too happy to provide it in the spirit of transparency and openness. I don't know where he is coming from talking about secrecy. I never mentioned the word. I am saying I am only too happy to give the information. It is just that I have to go back and get last year's information in that kind of detail. I can give him all the detail I have here with me.

The member also knows that in every other estimate, with the exception of this, there are all of the other officials who do nothing all year long but deal with these issues. In the House of Assembly you give the information you have. I don't run these departments like deputy ministers, I am the minister. I give all the information I have. I will give my best judgement and answer, then I will go to my department and get the details that are further required, which I have conferred here in the House that I will do. Not a problem.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

This debate in this House, in estimates, is about detail. That is what the nature of estimates is, detail. This should be the same exercise as we do in estimates outside the House. In other jurisdictions, on times, they are debating - in fact, I read in the newspaper when I was in Nova Scotia that they were appalled that when we were talking about expenditures in the Premier's office and elsewhere the Premier wasn't there. They made a big issue of that.

I expect a minister representing a government department, or Executive Council, to be able to stand here and tell me if they spent $300,000 or $400,000 or $700,000. They should be able to stand and tell me how much of that $700,000 went for permanent staff, how much went for temporary and how much went for overtime. Not giving this information, and not being prepared here, is not the way it has happened in the past, I can tell you, because I have been around here for a long time. I have been finance critic for over two years. I was finance critic for two years before that. I asked these questions in the House back in 1996 and 1997 and 1998. We have asked these questions here and we not getting answers. They are not forthcoming. I expect to get them from the minister. I am surprised the minister cannot stand and give them now, because other ministers, in estimates, do provide that detail. We cannot get information. The most open and transparent government and we cannot get it.

I would like to ask the question: Under this Economic and Social Policy Analysis, $13,000 was spent last year for travel and communications. They are looking at spending $40,000 this year. Why is there over a 300 per cent increase in your travel budget, communications, in this particular area this year compared to last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The member opposite knows there is not a 300 per cent increase. There was a budget last year, there was less spent, and, in fact, this year the same amount that was budgeted is put there again this year. We have the same debate and answer the same questions every time it comes up. What we have seen is that you give people an allocation for transportation, if it is not used it goes back into the general revenue. It shows that you have confidence in the people who are working for you and with you. If they don't need the travel, if it is not required, then it is not spent. If it is, they have the ability to do it because they have the work and the business of the people of the Province to do. We trust our employees. We give them an actual budget allocation and people can see from this that is wasn't spent. So it goes back into the general revenue and therefore they make a presentation towards an allocation they feel would be appropriate for this year. If it is spent, then they justify how it is spent. If it isn't, it goes into general revenue.

So, I say to the member opposite, it shows that our employees of the Cabinet Secretariat, who had a budget last year of $40,000, who only spent $13,000 because that is what they required, have now the $40,000 re-budgeted. If they do not need it, it will not be spent, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member of Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

That is precisely the nature of my question. I am glad the minister has finally said it. In other words, my question was: Why basically are you budgeting $40,000 when you have only used $13,000 in the past? Why do you budget it? If $13,000 was enough last year, maybe wouldn't $20,000 be a bit conservative just to allow some extra? Why go three times the amount that you used last year?

It has nothing to do with the confidence in people working in government. The minister tries to point it back on employees. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It has nothing to do with employees. It has a lot to do with the minister not being forthright and answering questions here. If you only spent $13,000, what do you expect to spend $27,000 more on this year than last year?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I do not have any difficulty answering any question, but I take offence when the member opposite says I am not being forthright. What he is looking at are the printed budget numbers for the people of this Province. Everything is there in black and white. The number that was allocated last year, the number that was spent, and the number that is budgeted. Now he may not like the number that is budgeted. Maybe he has no confidence in the Cabinet Secretariat and he would like to eliminate their budget. That is something that, at this point in time, he has no control over, except to give his view.

Our view, I again say that this is there for all the people of the Province. To say that I am not being forthright is really not a very honourable position to take because it is there in black and white. Now if the member has to stoop to that level to asked questions in the Estimates on Cabinet Secretariat, go there. I do not intend to participate in that kind of debate. It is below you, quite frankly.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I think the minister has just stooped to that level in the debate. I have a lot more confidence in the Cabinet Secretariat than I have in you, Minister, because you have not been answering any of these questions here today. I am sure we would get the answer from them.

I must say, when we were in Budget lock-up they were very forthright. They were very straightforward. They were very good. In fact, I compliment them on their forthrightness and openness there in providing information. I have said it. I found the people very co-operative. Far, far more co-operative than I have found this minister.

Under Protocol, 2.2.05, why, if you only spent $15,000 on travel in Protocol last year, are you budgeting $180,000 this year? Why is there twelve times as much money budgeted for travel? I know a year ago, the year before, the Premier's travel used to be buried under Protocol and then farmed out to all other departments. I understand the practice has been reversed now and there is a reflection in the Premier's travel for a 50 per cent increase in Premier's travel budgeted this year from $250,000 to $375,000. Protocol, of course, relates to, "Appropriations provide for official, diplomatic and royal visits as well as protocol related official functions and duties of the Premier."

What might necessitate a jump from $15,000 for travel last year to $180,000 this year? What special things are earmarked? I am sure, under Protocol, some events can be fairly expensive. We might be hosting certain things - royalty and certain diplomatic and certain other aspects that are needed there. Maybe they are earmarked there. I would like to ask the minister to just give us an idea of what special things would call for a 1,200 per cent increase in travel under this particular budget.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I am glad to hear the member make the comments about our staff and compliment them in Cabinet Secretariat, because I do concur. I would also say to the member opposite: He might not like the answers, but he is getting answers to his questions.

He is misrepresenting the numbers here, because everybody can see from the Budget Estimates that last year there was $180,000 allocated in this particular budget item and there is $180,000 allocated this year. The rationale for that is because it is the Protocol Office. Last year was an unusual year. There were very few visits and travel. I don't know, quite frankly, this year, because of SARS and other types of potential and threat, there might be decreased travel. I do not know. In this particular budget item you budget for things like the New England Governors' Conference, any diplomatic visits, state funerals, major provincial events, and it is budgeted. Again, it is not something that you always know is going to happen.

I want to assure the people of the Province, because there is something being portrayed here, in my view, that is less than accurate and I want to portray it. The member opposite is making a point that we have blown the budgets out of proportion, and he knows the difference. The point is, the budget allocated there, if it is not spent - and I want to assure the people of the Province, any money not spent - goes back into the general revenue of the Province. To make the assumption, because it was not spent last year, that it is blown out of proportion is really speaking to the member opposite and his whole tactic.

Madam Chair, what we have shown here is the amount that is budgeted, the amount that was spent, and because not all of the money was spent, it goes back into the general revenue. Each of these various departments make a pitch for and a plan for what they feel is required to deliver the services of the various branch they run. In this case, it is Protocol. They have put in an offer. I want to assure the people that, if the money is not spent, it will go back into the general revenue of the Province.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The point I am making is, if you need $180,000 and you could list out events anticipated this year, there is a reason for it. If you go back the year before, they only spent $50,000 and budgeted $250,000. Now they have dropped it to $180,000 and only spent $15,000. I am asking: Why are you budgeting $165,000 more than you spent? The year before you budgeted $200,000 more than you spent. Why are you putting inflated numbers in a budget if there is no need for it? Let's give a more realistic budget there. Let's give a true budget. Let's not give us a false budget and give the impression here on these numbers. Historically, when you only used $15,000 or $50,000, why did you budget $250,000 the year before last? Why did you budget $180,000?

If the minister could stand and say, we have a Royal visit coming to this Province and we are going to need $75,000 or $100,00 for that - have you earmarked anything for that extra $165,000, twelves times as much money for travel for the Premier and others that may be protocol related events over this year, when the Premier himself has been given a 50 per cent increase in his budget for travel besides this item? So that is $375,000 from $250,000 for the Premier alone, and protocol on top of this, another twelve times that.

To me, if the minister could stand and identify areas there, I would accept it, but she has not given me one single answer on what I have asked yet, not a specific answer, other than we will get the answer; we will get that. What other reason would you leave if you are not providing answers there? I do not like the answers because I am not getting an answer. I am not getting the figure I have asked. If I get an answer on the figure, then I will decide whether I like it or not. I certainly do not like the information that is given because the minister is trying to hide something here and give an impression here, doing something that has not been done before. This minister has been incompetent in her duties by not providing this information to us here in this House.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I think the Member for Ferryland has stooped to a new low. Just because he does not get the answers he wants does not mean he has the right to call people incompetent. I mean, you need to look in the mirror from time to time, I say to the Member for Ferryland, and I offered him a mirror last night when he was doing his soliloquy.

I say again, just because you do not get the answer you want, I say this to the Member for Ferryland, does not mean there are no answers. I say, again, that these numbers are printed for the people of the Province. He asked the question what it was for. He has tried to infer that we have a travel budget stashed all over the place for the Premier. All the travel for the Premier is recorded under the Premier's travel. I have already pointed out that this office is an office that provides for the Order of Canada, New England Governors, state visits, and diplomatic visits. We do not always know on April 1 who is coming to the Province. But, I can assure the people of the Province, without any doubt, that any money which is not spent for protocol initiatives will go back to the people of the Province through the general revenue. Not another penny will be spent, only that which is required. That is clear from this year's Budget. Only what was absolutely necessary was spent and everything else was returned to the general revenue. So, just because the member is not getting the answers he wants, gives him no right to call me incompetent. Maybe he should look at himself in the mirror if he wants to get to that level.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Well, the minister here is not providing accurate information, not providing any information. Did the minister indicate - I thought I heard her say in her previous response that the Protocol account is used for the Premier's travel with New England Governors in meetings. That does not come out of the Premier's travel. It comes out of Protocol. Would the minister confirm that? That is what she stated there just a few minutes ago. Would that be accurate?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

All of the Premier's travel is recorded under the Premier's travel allocation.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Why did the minister say in her previous statement that in this Protocol and other costs, you said New England Governors in meetings there? Where would this fit in? How much money might have been budgeted for the meeting with New England Governors and Atlantic Premiers, because the minister made that statement there? So, you are saying money is coming out of Protocol for those meetings. That is basically the statement she said, and Hansard should bear that out.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I was just giving an example and I have already identified. It is planning for the upcoming events, such as: New England Governors, the Eastern Canadian Premiers Conference, any diplomatic visits, the Order of Canada, all these various functions. As they become available they are all made public. People know what they are. The people involved, obviously, have to have a budget to do that kind of work.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

How much in this amount of $180,000 is budgeted for the Atlantic Premiers and New England Governors meetings or any travel related? Could the minister give me the projected amount for this particular there?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I will provide the member opposite all of the events that were spent. Of the $15,000 that was spent last year, I can certainly provide that. I cannot provide the cost of what will be spent this year because it has not occurred yet, but I would be happy to provide the breakdown for the $15,000 that was spent in hosting, preparing and doing all the protocol initiatives that were provided this year.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said she will provide again. She does not have it there. I am sure there is a budget. When you budget for something you have -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

I have to say this again. If the member opposite, and the people of the Province, really think that I am going to come to this House and have the details of every social event and protocol event, I think in all fairness, when the member stands up and says she does not know - I have said, and quite frankly, there is a fair bit of work in running two departments and other associated departments. I make no apology that I do not know every social and protocol event that is related to the protocol office for the whole Province of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will give every undertaking that I will give a full breakdown of the full $15,000 that was spent last year for protocol initiatives for the people of this Province. I have no problem with it, but I take great offence to the member standing up and saying I do not know which events were hosted, how many donuts they bought, how many cups of coffee they drank. I really think the people of the Province deserve better questions and then I would be only happy to give better answers.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Since she is in a cooperative mood now, could she also provide to me in 2.1.01, when she is going to provide the breakdown, under Transportation and Communication, also the breakdown on the $250,000 for last year under that item? If she does not have it with her, could she please provide it? That is the Premier's travel for last year, the $250,000. She could do a breakdown -

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I think if the member wants it The Telegram usually does a full Freedom of Information request on all the Premier's travel and it has been published. I would be happy to give it to you in this House if you have not read it in the paper already, but they have already asked for that. They do it at least every six months, if not annually. That information is there for the whole Province to see at any time.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am quite familiar with that. We spent a full day in Public Accounts on that particular topic, I say to the minister, basically trying to track down where the Premier's expenses were hidden, in what departments. That was the nature of our Public Accounts Committee on that particular topic.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have no difficulty answering any questions but I have difficulty with insinuations.

All of the Premier's travel has been recorded. When it was brought to our attention by the former Auditor General about Premier's travel being dispersed in various departments, when this new Premier came into office and it was made known to him it was changed mid-year. The member opposite knows. It was reflected last year, even though the Auditor General never made any mention of it in her last report.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would not expect Elizabeth Marshall to do that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, you would not expect it.

Those changes were made, so I think you need to be clear. The member opposite knows the difference but he tries to plant insinuations. He knows the difference on some of these things.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I just find it quite unusual that she is prepared to provide the $15,000 under protocol, under travel, but she was not prepared to provide a member of the Legislature here with the $250,000 under Premier's travel. She is prepared to do it in one area, but not in another. So she is being selective in what information she wants to provide here to this House.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member is so frustrated over there that he is not listening to the answer. I said I would be happy to provide the information. However, it is probably a waste of our own bureaucrats time to ask again because The Telegram has asked for it at least twice this year, and it has been published. If you do not believe them - if you want your own copy we can get it for you but please do not put words in my mouth, I say to the Member for Ferryland. I at no point said I was being selective and I at no point said I would not provide it. Maybe you need to settle down and listen instead of making your own views on what I am saying here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I must say it is not the member here who is getting a little unsettled, it is the minister who has not yet today provided one figure on the revised figures in this Budget. That is the purpose, Madam Chairperson. The purpose of estimates -

MR. REID: You don't listen, boy, give it up (inaudible) if you don't understand what estimates are.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Minister of Education, is not in his seat and is shouting and interfering with the process here. I ask that he be restrained, Madam Chair, from interfering.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Traditionally, each year since I came to this House, and that is eleven years ago, that there are estimate committees established whereby - committees established by this House can go into estimates committees and ask the ministers questions on expenditures and would have their staff available to provide them. It is has been tradition in this House that Executive Council, Premier's expenditures, Legislature, Consolidated Revenue Fund, and so on, would be done here in this House and those figures would traditionally be provided to us.

I have asked for breakdowns on each and so far all I have gotten: we will get it for you. We have not been given one figure. The minister has not come prepared with even a general breakdown under those headings here in the Budget. That, to me, is not doing the required job or being open enough to give us information basically on those estimates. It is not the way it has been done historically. If I asked, can you tell me - for example, I said the $360,000. She cannot even tell us how much was spent on permanent, temporary and overtime. They cannot even give that general figure.

I do not want to know further breakdowns on numbers and things, just general headings to give me some idea if the department is spending 40 per cent more in temporary and overtime than it is on its salaries; another 40 per cent when other areas are only spending 10 per cent more. Maybe it is time to put another permanent position in there if we are spending more on overtime than we are in (inaudible). These are the types of things that we need to know - whether the proper management is occurring and the proper utilization of human resources are here in government departments. If we do not get the answers there, how can you make reasonable suggestions and so on, on these particular areas?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

I just want to say that I want to thank my officials for the information on last year's, not this year's book, but on last year's book which the member opposite wants to question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, it was last year's book.

With all due respect to the Member for Ferryland, I have all the answers to the questions for this year's budget, but he wanted to go back to last year's numbers. I did ask, and I just want to provide this for the member opposite and for the people of the Province, because I know they are on the edges of their seats on this one. The actual number for this year, as I said, was for five permanent positions, and I said there was $170,000 for temporary. For last year, which is what he asked, there was $179,900 spent on permanent and $162,700 on permanent. That is the difference between last year and this year.

MR. SULLIVAN: You said permanent twice. Which is permanent and which is temporary?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The permanent is the higher amount of $179,900 and for the temporary, $162,700 - I am happy to repeat it for the Member for Ferryland - for a total of $342,600, with no overtime in there.

MR. REID: Ask and you shall be enlightened.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Ask and you shall receive.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The minister says she has all the figures on this year. I want to ask her again - $180,000 for Protocol, and $15,000 was spent last year - what is the breakdown for $180,000 for this year, if you have all the figures? Tell us on what you project spending twelve times as much as last year. The only figure you have, Minister, is $180,000, and you have no idea where it is going to be spent because the budget is twelve times as large in this item as it was last year. Give us the breakdown, or the areas of predicted expenditure, to a reasonable guesstimate at least.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I will explain it again to the member, because I know there are a lot of heads to go through and it gets confusing for him. I will explain it to him.

The Protocol Office, this vote, is put in place in the event that there are special events planned for the people of the Province. Sometimes, as we all know, we have the Duke come, we have the Queen, or whoever, and we have dignitaries from the United States or from other parts of the country, and we put that budget in place.

Now, the member wants me to give a list of who is coming to the Province. I cannot do that, because when the Budget was prepared on April 1, we did not have the list. However, what we do know is, last year we had $180,000 and we did not spend it. I do not know what will happen this year, Madam Chair, with the event of SARS and people more reticent to travel. I do not know how many people will be coming to the Province, but I can assure the people of the Province that if the money is not spent, it will go back into the general revenue just as it has this year, just as it has last year.

It is important for that office to be able to plan events, important events, if they are required. What I will say again is, if the money is not spent, without hesitation, it will go back into the general revenue for the people of the Province.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

That minister is not coming clean on these figures. For example, the minister is trying to tell us now that the Queen or the Duke might visit the Province, with this short notice, this fiscal year. I think that Royal visits are planned well in advance. I do not think Royal visits are planned months and months ahead. I think they are more into years.

The minister does not have one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The bottom line, Madam Chairperson, is that the minister does not have one particular idea of how the $180,000 she is proposing in that budget this year - when she only spent $15,000 last year. I want to look back historically.

Two years ago, they budgeted $250,000 in Protocol and spent $50,000. Then they started dropping it to $180,000 and they spent $15,000. Now they have it up to $180,000 again. The last couple of years they never spent more than $50,000 and now it plugs in at $180,000. That, to me, is cushion. It is fat that it is put in a budget to meet future needs they may have of a political nature, the same as an extra 50 per cent, $125,000 extra, in Premier's travel, and it is in particular areas here.

If the minister stood and said, there is a planned visit here that is going to cost something, then I could understand, but she has not been able to give me one specific breakdown on last year's figures. She has not been able to give one specific area and target amount on this year's figures.

The minister might not know it, but when a Budget is tabled in this House, it is not only a Budget that is tabled for the upcoming year, it is a table of the revised figures for the year just ended so that we can have a comparison. That is the nature and that has been done ever since I came into this House. The minister does not know that, and she is not prepared for it. She should check with previous Finance Ministers who came prepared to answer these type of questions in the House before.

Basically, it has not been happening here. We are just getting stonewalled on these particular things here and I see it futile, the process here of Estimates and to get answers on questions. It is futile. There are blocks put up here by a government that professes to be the most open and transparent government. It is frustrating, I might add, Madam Chairperson, that they are hiding and shielding and will not give us the information here when they profess to be otherwise.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I have to say here that I think it is absolutely ridiculous and insulting to listen to that kind of verbiage that we just had to listen to about no answers. Just because the member does not get an answer to the question that he likes, just because he cannot accept the fact that we did not spend money so we put it back in general revenue, just because he cannot accept the fact that people come and make a budget plan. Like, for example, this year we did not budget for what happened in Badger. We could not have budgeted for what happened in Badger. We did not know that, but you do the best you can with the information you have.

Do you know something, Madam Chair? When you do not spend all the money, the money goes back into the general revenue. When you do need it, it is spent and it is accounted for. Just because there is an amount allocated does not mean there is going to be that same amount spent, and the member opposite knows that.

Now, I understand he is frustrated. He looks frustrated, he sounds frustrated, and it is because he is not getting what he wants, but I can say to the member opposite that these accounts are totally in order. They are there for the whole people of the Province, for everyone to see. Like I have said time and time again, just because he does not get the answer to the question he wants does not mean the answer is not there. It does not mean that the people in Cabinet Secretariat are not doing their work.

I can honestly say that any answer to any question, I am only too happy to provide it, and I have. There hasn't been one question asked here today that has not been answered with respect to these questions, even though he does not like them. Then again he does not like anything we say so what would you expect?

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

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

Madam Chair, I have a few questions for the minister on Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Executive Council, which we are here today to try to get some answers out of the minister.

In the Estimates meetings here in the House of Assembly this past few weeks, I happened to be the Vice-Chair of the Committee which asks questions to the Minister of Finance some time ago with respect to the Department of Finance. We were here for a couple of hours, I believe, trying to get answers, and hopefully we will get some more here today.

I would like to ask the minister, under the Executive Support on the Office of the Executive Council, 2.3.02.03 under Transportation and Communications, there was $91,000 budgeted last year, you spent $91,000 and $91,000 is budgeted for this year. When you look at the Estimates, Madam Chair, in previous years and in this booklet itself, you oftentimes see variations. It is unusual to see the exact amount of money spent. I wonder, could the minister give us a breakdown on the $91,000 to be spent this year on Transportation and Communications under Executive Support?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you talking under Intergovernmental Affairs?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Office of the Executive Council. Intergovernmental Affairs, that is right, yes, 2.3.02 Executive Support.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not get to question it, so basically under subhead 2.3.02 Executive Support, .03 Transportation and Communications, $91,000 budgeted last year, $91,000 spent and $91,000 budgeted this year. Could the minister give some kind of a breakdown of what that money, the $91,000 budgeted for this year, will be spent on? Details?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, as the hon. member said, $91,000 budgeted last year, $91,000 spent and $91,000 budgeted for this year. The expenses relate not only to travel but also to telecommunication costs.

I think, Madam Chair, in the breakdown last year, there was $80,000 actually spent on travel and the remainder of the budget was spent on communications. This is for the people, the support staff, the deputy ministers in Intergovernmental Affairs that travel throughout the country, Ottawa. Wherever they travel, that is their budget. I don't have the breakdown any more than as the figure stated there. Last year $80,000 was spent in travel and $10,000 in communications.

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

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

I would like to also ask the minister under the same subhead, Executive Support, 2.3.02, you budgeted last year $261,800 for salaries, you spent $312,900, and this year you have budgeted $275,100. That extra $51,000 that was a budget revised figure, could you give us a breakdown on who that money was spent on - obviously, it was an extra position - and what that position may have been within the department, and the purpose of it?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

That salary, for the benefit of the hon. member, includes four permanent positions, temporary assistants and overtime. The increase for 2003-2004 is the budgeted salary increase, the increase that was given. The revised figure in 2000-2002 shows an expense of, the hon. member said, $51,000 greater than budgeted due to increased demand for temporary assistance, overtime, and savings were realized in other areas to take that amount.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Could the minister explain the temporary assistance? Was it one, two, or three individuals? How were those people hired on? Were they hired on through the line department or did they come in through the Public Service Commission?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Public Service Commission (inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance said that temporary does not come through the Public Service Commission. In the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, we get a lot of temporary people in because of certain demands on the department, if we are into a certain issue that temporary help is hired. For example, if we could be into this situation now with respect to the Terms of Union, there could be some permanent employees brought on with specialties in this area who would only be there for a month or two months. That happens a lot within Intergovernmental Affairs, some years more than others, but this year that is what the $51,000 was. I can certainly get, for the hon. member, precisely what activities that was and what the salaries were.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Under the same subhead, I would just like to ask the minister - I think it is 05, Professional Services. The department had budgeted $1,500 for that last year, in the revised figure you spent $30,000, and this year you have budgeted $1,500 again. Could you explain that $30,000, why such an increase? Just give us an explanation, I would say to the minister, of that figure?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Subhead 05, Professional Services, again that relates to, as I was telling the hon. member - in this particular case, the cost was associated with a couple of reports, the McMillan report, the action plan and design of the Council of Atlantic Premiers. This was work done for the Atlantic premiers, a report done for the Atlantic premiers, and the cost was shared by all of the provinces. That extra was the cost to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This was a study commissioned by the Atlantic premiers and cost-shared by the four Atlantic provinces. That was the Province's share. Of course, that is a one-time deal and this year it doesn't appear.

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

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

Under the same subhead, section 10, Grand and Subsidies. Last year you had budgeted $257,800, you actually spent $176,500 and this year you have budgeted $340,800, which is a significant increase over what was even budgeted last year. You only spent $176,500 last year and this year you have $340,800. Can you give us some details as to why the revised figure has been down and this year it is up significantly over what was actually budgeted last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, it relates to the activities participated in by Intergovernmental Affairs. There are four or five councils that Intergovernmental Affairs is involved in pretty much. They would be the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers' Secretariat and the Council of Atlantic Premiers. All of these organizations require a membership fee. Last year, for example, to the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, the fee was $27,800. The New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers' Secretariat was $30,000, and the Council of Atlantic Premiers was $283,000.

The revised lower budget is because the Province's contribution to the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference was $24,000 and the New England Governors was $12,000, and approximately $140,000 to the Council of Atlantic Premiers in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. All of the above contributions are less than originally anticipated. Estimates are up, as our Province will become a full member in the Council of Atlantic Premiers in this fiscal year. The other year, 2003, we only paid partial. This year, it is the full fee.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member understands that. This is important. Last year, we had decided we would join the Atlantic Premiers' Council but the year was only half over. We were half into the year and we paid half the fee. This year, it is the full fee. That is the explanation for the higher amount of money.

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

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

Madam Chair, I would say the people out there could actually see the difference in the answers we are receiving from this minister and the answers we received from the previous minister. He obviously has his homework done. I have not asked him a question yet, Madam Chair, that he has not answered.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Finance, what is the problem?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have no problem.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Madam Chair, would the minister, seeing that he is talking about, in the previous answer that he gave, could he give us a breakdown of the benefits he sees by this Province being a part of those associations? Can he just elaborate on that, the benefits we receive?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I suppose it could be explained in one cliché which says: No man is an island unto himself - and I expect no institution is. By belonging to these various organizations, I will take, for example, the Atlantic Premiers. The Atlantic Premiers meet and discuss policy of common interest, and areas in which we can share to cut down on costs, for example. There has been a lot of progress made in that area with the Atlantic Premiers. There are things in education we can share, for example, like materials, books that are expensive. We can order these in a group for the Atlantic Provinces and that kind of thing, or any kind of special equipment that we need in schools that we can purchase together. School examinations, standardized tests, that kind of thing, they are things that we can buy in a pool to cut down on the cost. These are the kinds of things we look at, how we can cut down on costs in our services. In health we do the same thing, what services we can together do in health.

With the New England Governors, naturally, we discuss how we can generate trade, how we can create more trade with the New England Governors, the Atlantic Provinces together, or even Newfoundland and Labrador separate. It is very beneficial because the New England States, obviously, are very close to Atlantic Canada and the more trade we can create with these, the better for our Province.

The one other benefit of the Atlantic Premiers is not only do we discuss regional matters, matters related to us province by province and region by region, but also it is a place where we test out national policy. If the federal government is coming out with some national policy, it is a place, a clearing house, where the premiers discuss the pros and cons of whatever the national policy is and together take a stand as to whether or not this is good for Atlantic Canada.

In all of these organizations, I think, we really get the bang for our dollar.

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

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

Basically, I suppose, if you want to make a comparison to those groups and those associations here provincially, certain areas within the Province now, municipalities, are starting to co-operate with each other in regional areas to look at purchasing services, materials, or whatever the case may be. What you are saying sounds like it is probably a good thing, I say to the minister, and hopefully the money we are spending on that is certainly worthwhile.

I say to the minister, under section 2.3.03.05, Policy Analysis and Coordination, Professional Services, you budgeted $162,000, you spent $56,000, and this year you have budgeted $12,000. Could you tell us the services that were purchased with that $162,000, that would have been purchased, why you only spent $56,000, and now this year there is only $12,000 on those services? What are the professional services, a breakdown on those?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, this was work done for the Department of Mines and Energy. As the hon. member would know, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs works with all of the departments of government, particularly departments that deal with the national government. From time to time, departments are doing something where they call upon the expertise of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, because Intergovernmental Affairs is a department with people who are trained in speciality areas and are particularly trained towards national and international affairs.

In this particular case, the Department of Mines and Energy was looking into a gas policy. They had asked the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs to prepare a study for them. That difference, that is what it cost to do that particular study. It was only a one-time deal, again, so this year it is just back to normal, what they think professional purchases would be.

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

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

Still under Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, 2.3.04 Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada, I thought that the Commission would be reporting some time in June. That is my impression of what was supposed to happen. Under .03 Transportation and Communications, $264,000 was spent last year and you have $266,000 -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible). I know he is under the Royal Commission.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is right. I am under the Royal Commission, 2.3.04. I will say that if the minister did not hear the question that time it was because, I suppose, of certain individuals on that side of the House, namely the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is right.

Madam Chair, under .03 Transportation and Communications, you had budgeted $264,000 to expend last year and you have $266,000 budgeted for this year. Could you just explain what is going on there?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) pointed out to the hon. member as well, the three things which were in the Intergovernmental Affairs budget this year which caused it to be - the member looked at the total figure to find out that it is much higher than is normal for Intergovernmental Affairs. Through his questions he has already touched on some of them, but I just thought probably I should point them out to him, what has caused the overall budget to be higher than normal.

One is the one that he is on to now, the Royal Commission. The other was the work on the gas strategy that the department did for Mines and Energy, and the third one was, this Province hosted the 2002 Conference of Ministers Responsible for Francophone Affairs. When you subtract these things from the budget of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs had a surplus, actually, of $116,000 in its total budget.

On the Royal Commission, Transportation and Communications, the minister is asking why the difference in the revised estimates from 2002 to $266,000?

MR. J. BYRNE: Could you explain why (inaudible)?

MR. LUSH: That was the amount that the Commission indicated they would be spending. That is the budget they submitted to us and we have submitted it to the House, so it is their request for that amount of money. That is what they figure, I suppose, they are going to need to finish up their travel and communications for the remainder of the year and to the end of their Commission.

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

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

While we certainly support this Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada, I would like to get a breakdown of that $266,000, because I was under the impression that most of the travel had concluded some time ago, some time in March, and to have $266,000, the same as what was spent last year, seems to be not quite clear to me why that is the case.

As I say, when you look at the fact that the Commission had done most of its travelling by the end of March of this year.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

All I can say to the hon. member, I will certainly attempt to do that for the hon. member. It is an important question.

I notice in the notes here, it talks about freight as well. They get a lot of materials shipped to them in getting information from other provinces, this kind of thing. I think maybe when their final report is done - I do not know whether that is part of the cost because it says here: freight, express and cartage. Pretty high, it is $25,000. That is an unusual one that you do not see in other reports; freights being that much. I expect, again, it is because of the materials that they had come into them for study and so on.

The actual money, for example, that we spent last year in travel was $211,000. That was the actual amount in travel. The rest was in communications and freight. This year they have requested that their amount in travel be $231,000.

To the hon. member, it is a good question. We will see if we can get a breakdown for him.

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

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

I accept the minister's answer there in that he will endeavour to get further information on that.

Under the next section there, .05, Professional Services. I find this one a bit peculiar also. You budgeted $500,000, the revised figure is $806,000, which is $306,000 more than was budgeted, and this year under Professional Services we have $288,000. Could the minister explain the differences in all three and give us some kind of a breakdown of the Professional Services that were purchased by the Commission during this past year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think, Madam Chair, in their first budget, $500,000, that was merely seed money. The Commission was just starting. It was in the second part that they did most of their research, that was when the bulk of the research was being done. That is why the $806,000. Now, as the hon. member pointed out, re the transportation. They are near the end. So most of the research has been done in the first two attempts, or the first two time periods, the first $500,000.

Then in the second phase of the budget, that was when their Professional Services were most expensive and now $288,000 to finish up. These were consulting services, legal and research, commissioners fees and public relations service. In other words, out of that money as well, the commissioners were paid. Those commissioners who are under salary - because one of the commissioners is under salary; two of the commissioners are under fees. So that is where their salaries came out of, and they get paid according to their hours worked. I am not sure exactly how it is, but that is their fees. That is why they are a little high in the middle, because you have a longer period. Now, on the end part of it, there is not going to be many fees because they are just about finished. So, two things are happening here. One, is that the commissioners fees, their salary, naturally has been mostly paid because the part that is left now is not going to be very much. Secondly, the consulting fees also won't be as much because they have done that in the front end of their service.

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

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

The minister certainly is addressing the question but I would like him to expand further with respect to - when you say consulting fees, legal fees, and maybe even engineering fees, I do not know. Would he explain those professions? Would the Commission just have went out and hired, or would they have asked for proposals on this type of work? Could the minister address that?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I do not know precisely how the Commission would have done it. We would assume that they would have done their work according to government regulations. I don't think we imposed anything on them. Generally, when you set up a commission they know what the rules are. I would have assumed that the Commission followed the rules that are applicable to getting government services or government contracts, whatever the case might be.

I can give, for example, to the hon. member some of the things that were done, without giving the names because I am not - I am sure they could be available to the member. I am just looking at (inaudible) a sample of contractual work that was done for the Commission. One would have been an economist and a political scientist. He was paid $59,000. Another economist was paid $23,000. There is a list of eight or nine people who were paid. They range from a low of $13,000 to a high of $59,000. Fifty-nine thousand was the highest paid to an individual, and the lowest being $13,000.

On the actual contracting of consulting and legal contracts, I can only assume the proper procedures were followed that we generally follow in government for those services.

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

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

I have no doubt that the proper procedures would have been followed with the commission. So, basically though, minister -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy has some type of problem over there, Madam Chair, maybe you should address it for him. He seems to always have a problem.

Under section 06., I say to the minister, under Purchased Services. There was no money budgeted for Purchased Services.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is quite interested in hearing the questions so he can answer them. So maybe you should pay attention.

Under Purchased Services, there was no money budgeted but $173,000 spent. This is a complete reverse of the answers you had given earlier with respect to Transportation and Communications and Professional Services, in that the pilot thing was almost over or getting towards the end of it, so the money is being cut back, the expenditures would be cut back. Here as we see they have $173,000 budgeted and the Commission is looking for $436,000 for next year; well two- and-a-half times what they spent. Could the minister explain what those Purchased Services were, the money spent on last year? Could he tell us what that $436,000 is expected to be spent on in 2003-2004 when the Commission should be reporting some time in June? It is only a month or two away.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member is right to point out how this appears to be going in the opposite direction, whereas in the others they were going down because they were coming near the end of the report. This is because this is the actual cost of the report. This will be the printing of the report. Included in that cost - that is the big one - is office space rental, meeting room rentals, but the big cost, this is now the actual printing of the report plus these other costs that are built in, room rentals and office space rentals.

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

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

Section 2.4.01, Communications, Consultation, Internet Operations and Graphic Support. Under 01. Salaries, you had budgeted last year $494,700 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance? We will have to wait a minute or two for the minister to get in here, I suppose.

Maybe I will ask the minister a question in the interim. Information Technology, under 2.3.04.12, $63,000 that was spent and $30,000 this year. Could you give us information - I suppose when you look at the various departments throughout government and the amount of money that they spend on information technology, with a new group or commission starting out $63,000 does not seem to be a lot of money for information technology but in actual fact, I would just like to have an explanation of that.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Again, Madam Chair, this is a matter of cluing up their work. What this was - mainly two things under this heading. Number one, the purchase of hardware and software but it also included information technology services. I expect, again, that they are winding down in all three areas, the purchase of the hardware and the software. I think this last one now will be mostly paying for the information technology consulting services as they clue up their work, do their printing and I am sure that they are going to need the information technology people to help them in the final publication of their report.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have some questions for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board related, I guess, to the Consolidated Fund Services, and I will just refer to page 5, if we could begin there. I will just give her a moment to get to the page and to the subhead. It is on page 5 of the Budget document, the Estimates for 2003, dealing with the Consolidated Fund Services, and under the heading generally of Servicing of the Public Debt.

I do not know if the minister has it yet or not.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No problem. I know you have a lot of paper in front of you and this is part of the Budget Estimates process where -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) or where are you?

MR. E. BYRNE: Subhead 1.1.01 under Temporary Borrowings current, there is an explanation there under that, the sum of $200,000. The explanation says: Appropriations provide - and this is under Servicing of the Public Debt. I assume, I believe correctly, I am not sure, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume all of our public debt. "Appropriations provide for the interest expense on temporary bank borrowings by the Province." What temporary bank borrowings would we be talking about? It seems like a small sum for all temporary bank borrowings. Is it a specific bank borrowing that we are talking about for a specific reason? Just a little further explanation on subhead 1.1.01 please.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Basically, you are right. It is a very small amount, if you look at a $4 billion budget. What it refers to are really bank charges on overdraft. So it works out to .0003 per cent of $4 billion. What happens is that, generally, every day you check what your bank balance is and if you know you have $20 million, for example, today, you will probably try to sell it in an overnight bond to get 2 per cent or 3 per cent so you are not letting it sit there, but on the same hand if you have cheques out and they are not cashed today, they might be cashed in two days time, and because they are not cashed on that day you end up with a cash shortfall and therefore you go into a bank overdraft.

I guess you can see from the budget we have of $4 billion at a cost of $125,000, there is a very small error of bank overdraft. We really try to do that and use it as little as possible because we prefer just to invest the money, but on the off chance that it happens, that is what they are. They are the bank charges for overdraft.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Before I get into, I guess, some more specific questions on the actual details of the Budget, I think it is probably an appropriate time when we talk about Consolidated Fund Services. I believe servicing of our debt is somewhere in the vicinity of about $527 million, et cetera. I guess my question on a more general topic, we can get to the actual sum in a moment, in terms of, you know, who we owe money to as a Province, what currency is that in, whether it be in the Asian markets or the U.S. markets, or whatever the case may be, what sort of strategies does the Department of Finance and Treasury Board employ, and active ones, because I know you have them, in terms of trying to get the lowest cost options for the Province so that we continue to reduce the amount of debt on the one hand but, on the other hand, also that we try to reduce our interest payments on it. I know that is done.

In a former role I played in the House as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, we investigated this matter on numerous occasions with Finance officials and in public hearings. I guess I would like an update on how the Department of Finance, on a regular and systematic basis, searches for ways, means and opportunities through the markets: one, to reduce our interest payments on the overall debt that we have, and how do we do that in trying to take advantage of fluctuations in the marketplace on particular borrowings, whether it be in Japanese Yen, U.S. dollars or whatever the case may be? Just a general comment on that may lead to some other questions as well.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I think since the late 1980s, particularly, when interest rates were quite high, there has been a formal strategy in place to try to reduce foreign borrowings and try to stick mostly with Canadian. I think, at the time, in 1989, we were about 54 per cent in foreign borrowings and now we are down to 28 per cent. We have made a concerted effort to reduce the number of foreign borrowings and to try to stick with Canadian dollars, for obvious reasons. We have gone from over 50 per cent down to 28 per cent. In fact, this summer we will redeem, based on maturity of a Swiss franc issue, that will put us now in strictly Canadian and U.S. dollar markets.

We just did a bond issue in February, but it was a Euro-Canadian bond so we got it at an excellent rate of interest at five and one-eighth per cent, and it is a long-term issue. Our strategy involves going to the markets. We are in the markets every day. I want to compliment our staff, particularly in the Department of Finance, who have an excellent relationship with the fiscal agents and with the money markets of the world. Every day we are in the markets. We do a fair bit of exchange, as you will see, in Treasury bills, ninety-one day Treasury bills, because we get the best return on our investment. If we do that, you will see that even the rates, since March 31, are quite good. We can do an exchange at about three-and-a-quarter per cent as opposed to paying six-and-a-half or six-and-three-quarter per cent in long-term capital markets.

It is a huge difference. The other strategy we have is, we look at our long-term issues, our debentures. For example, if we have something coming due next year we look at the penalty that we would pay, we compare that to the current interest, we weigh the penalty against the interest and sometimes we cash in early because the penalty is better to pay than the high interest rates. That is a strategy. We have done that a fair bit. In fact, we might actually be doing that again because we have another issue that comes due again this summer with the Swiss franc issue.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

That provides some information. I guess it is a worthwhile strategy in paying the penalty sometimes, as the minister has indicated. It is like when mortgage rates were 11 per cent or 12 per cent and within a six- to eight-month period they dropped to six-and-a-half. I recall myself, from my own personal situation, we paid a penalty to get out of 11.5 per cent mortgage to get into - it actually saved us $4,000 or $5,000 over the year, as a couple, in managing our own personal finances. The analogy should not be lost on anybody in terms of what the Department of Finance should do.

Let me ask the minister this question. The exposure to the Province in terms of the money we owe and in particular, who we owe it to, is always an issue in the money marketplace. Particularly in more volatile foreign markets, I think the minister just talked about, where the risk is higher in terms of the volatility of the international money marketplace. I am just looking for, I guess, some general information in terms of - compared to, say, four or five years ago - and I do not know if you have this at your fingertips. But compared to even four or five years ago to now, how much, as a Province, have we reduced that risk? How have we reduced our borrowings in foreign markets converting to more Canadian bonds, as you have indicated? Is the strategy still in place to reduce that as far as we can, whenever we can, when it is in our best interests? How much have we reduced our risk in that regard?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I think our foreign currency peaked at 50.3 per cent in 1983, and this year we are at 28 per cent. As I said, all of our borrowings are in the U.S. and Canadian markets with the exception of one, and that is the Swiss franc issue which is due this July, in fact. We have done very well to bring down all of our borrowings into the Canadian and U.S. markets. Even when we do a foreign exchange in the Euro market, we do it in Euro-Canadian dollars.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

In subhead 1.1.02, dealing with Treasury Bills. We budgeted last year, minister, $17,493,500. The revised budget - our expenditure was actually at $14,155,000. This year we are estimating that we are going to be, in terms of debt expenses on Treasury Bills, $16,740,000.

Now the explanation in the subhead talks about: Appropriations provide for the interest expense on treasury bill borrowings. That is fairly self-explanatory. Maybe you answered the question in a general way a few moments ago, but it would be interesting to hear the answer. Last year we budgeted x number based upon our best estimates. Obviously, we did not need to spend or net out as much money. What was the specific reason for $3.5 million worth of difference in savings? In answering that, if you can, on what basis - and I guess general estimates - did we look at putting in an expenditure this year to provide the interest expense on treasury bill for $16,740,000?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The answer to the question is that this year's interest rates were lower and we actually did achieve some savings because the cost of borrowing the money was lower. When we make these budgeted predictions with respect to finance, even though we have a lot of expertise in our Department of Finance, we go to our fiscal agents and our investment dealers and it is based on their best estimates in the markets. That is why we are looking, probably, at a rate of moving between 3.25 per cent to 4.25 per cent. Based on that increased percentage point, is why we understand now that the cost of these expenses will be higher. This really is the alternative that we have to our borrowings.

As you know, you just asked a question on our overdraft, which is really quite low when you look at a $4 billion budget; but what we try to do, whenever possible, is we try to buy the treasury bills. Sometimes we will even buy a twenty-four hour treasury bill and get 2 per cent earned interest rather than let it sit there in the account. Twenty million dollars overnight is worth a lot of money at 2 per cent. So this is the alternative.

What we do is look at the markets. We look at the interest rates, and based on the best figures and estimates we get from our fiscal agents and our investment dealers - they are giving us a range this year that is higher than last year, about 3.25 per cent to 4.25 per cent. So that is where your number comes from.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

So, in essence, I think it would be fair to say, and a fair commentary to say, that because of the fluctuations in the marketplace the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - what it had originally budgeted last year in this particular instance, that we were able to realize some extra revenue, or extra money in terms of what we did not anticipate.

I guess the question for the minister is this. When these things occur, particularly on the savings that we talk about under treasury bills, did we take that money then, the unanticipated - you know, what it cost us to service the interest on the treasury bills. It was less than $14,155,000 as compared to what we estimated at $17,493,500. What did we do with the savings? Did we apply that against other debt reliefs moves that the Department of Finance might have anticipated, or did government look at those - that realized extra cash that it did not foresee when it announced this budget. Did you apply that to other departments or emergencies or situations that might have arisen throughout the year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Again, this is a very fluid environment when you are looking at your overnight treasury bills and ninety-one day treasury bills. So this was not used for long-term debt. This was used basically for management. As you know - I don't know if you know this, but we have a weekly auction currently at $38 million in treasury bills which we use because the interest rate is so favourable. We would use that as part of the $38 million on a regular turnover basis for the ninety-one day treasury bills. So that would go into our current account managing our short-term debt. That is how we would use that extra money.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Under 1.1.04, Canada Pension Plan. The explanation provided in the budget documents say this: Appropriations provide for interest expenses on funds borrowed from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund.

Last year it was budgeted at $62,565,500. We spent approximately the same, maybe $14,000 less or a little more than that, but this year our debt expenses are estimated to be at $58,828,900. I wonder if the minister could provide the explanation for that? Maybe it is for some of the same reasons you have already outlined. I anticipate that it is because interest rates are so favourable, that is the reason for less borrowings. In asking that question, in looking forward to the fiscal year that we are now presently in, the Department of Finance, I would assume - and I know they do, actually - would regularly try to forecast where interest rates are going based upon the best possible advice from money markets around the globe.

Are the forecasts predicting that we may be into more interest decline or less borrowing costs, or are we stagnant? It is not something that I am going to hold you to because no one can accurately predict it to the percentage point, obviously, but in terms of forecasting of where we are going to be in strategic long-term financial planning, I would assume that information would be available to the Department of Finance and thus to the minister.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

As you assume, the rationale of it going from $62.5 million to $58.8 million was because of lower interest rates. When the CPP was rolled over, it was rolled over at a lower interest rate, so that assumption is correct.

Right now, our best information from our fiscal agents and advisors is that the interest rates will go up. I guess we will have to wait to see. I think everybody knows what happened this year. If you look at the impact on our pension fund, for example, everybody knows - and other investments. People know from their own investments, if they are lucky enough to have any, the impact of the markets this year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board a few questions on the Consolidated Fund Services.

There is a considerable public debt that is being managed by her department. I understand they have an obligation to keep track of all of these amounts. I am concerned in part, Madam Chair, about the fact that the public debt includes investments, which are called Temporary Investments here - 1.1.05 Temporary Investments. "Appropriations provide for interest earnings on the Province's investment of available cash in the money markets, and on bank balances." It is stated there to be a negative figure. Why is that stated as a negative figure of $500,000, whereas the other expenditures up above for debt expenditures, for example, on debentures, is stated as a positive amount, $405 million?

Can the minister explain why it is stated that way? Are these actually revenues on these investments, or is this what you were explaining that you have money overnight - money that is put in place to, in fact, incur interest income for the Province for monies that otherwise might be in Treasury bills or something else?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

This is actually a revenue, as the member asked, so the negative is a positive inasmuch as we are getting revenue. That is how it is recorded here. It is recorded as a revenue. Oftentimes we might get a lump sum payment from the federal government for some program r it could be for something that would go into the Consolidated Fund and, again, rather than let it sit there overnight, it could be $100 million, it could be $20 million, what we do is you roll it over. If we know we are not going to need it for twenty-four hours or forty-eight hours, we put it out in a short-term Treasury bill. We get 2 per cent for overnight, say. If it is a ninety-one day Treasury bill we can 3.25 per cent. So, that is the revenue that we achieve from the short-term cash balances that we get from lump sum payments, so you are right in your assumption there.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank you for the answer, although perhaps the minister can explain why it is that the budgeted revenue from that source is cut in half from the revised budget for 2002-2003 where $1.1 million was achieved on a budget of $1.5 million? Is the minister being very cautious here, or is this where we have adjustments later on in the year, or is this an actual estimate based on known factors that the minister is predicting for this forthcoming year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Actually, it is an amount again that is put forward by our fiscal advisors, and I guess you could call it conservative but I think we are looking towards it being more accurate because we know we have had less cash available for investment. So, when you know you have less cash available for investment, you are expecting less cash, then you know you are going to receive less revenue for cash if you do not have that to put in overnight or ninety-one day Treasury bills. So you are again correct in your assumption.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wonder if the minister could comment on an issue as to sometimes where this cash goes. I know over the years, and some years ago now, more than ten years ago, I was on the Board of Directors of a very large credit union in the Province of which many teachers are members, because it was an amalgamation of the Teachers' Credit Union and another one, and one of the issues that used to come up from time to time was whether or not the government of this Province would be willing to have some of their free deposits stored at the credit union as opposed to a chartered bank.

I know these amounts of money, sometimes there are large amounts of money for short periods of time, but they seem to provide a source of ready cash flow or cash access, cash reserves for a large organization, and I am thinking here of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, which has assets of in excess of $200 million at this point, and perhaps is an organization large enough to absorb some of the deposit. Because this was seen to be, at the time, one of the things that might assist an organization like the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, which is probably the largest independent source of finance capital in the Province, its control in the Province.

Is that something that this government has been involved in, or ever considered being involved in, in supporting an organization like that in this way, by depositing some its reserve funds or some of its funds like this in an organization like the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, that would perform part of their capital base, obviously, obligations to the government in terms of interest, but also providing access to capital that they could use to loan to their members or prospective members in use in the Province? Is that something that this government has ever considered?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

As you know, the Royal Bank is currently our major bank. I would assume, when that contract is up, that anyone would be free to participate and try to avail of the services of government because it is a fairly big contract.

Since I have been Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I have not met with any group that were lobbying or looking for that kind of initiative. That is something that would have to go - I think it is every five years, if I am not mistaken. I do not know exactly where we are in that part of the cycle, but I would be happy to find that out for the member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would suspect, given the minister's comment that this is a five-year contract for all of government's banking or financial interests, that it would probably preclude an organization like the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, given its size. Perhaps it is worth considering, when this contract is being let, that it not be a totally exclusive contract and that it may be possible for government to keep some of its funds deposited in an organization that has its ownership within the Province.

That leads me into another question, Madam Chair, concerning the government contributions to the pension fund. I see on page 9 of the Estimates, under Consolidated Funds Services, subhead 2.1.01 Contributions to Pension Fund, there is an Employee Benefits line there for $61,147,300 with a revenue attached to it of $114,000, for a total contribution to the pension fund of $61 million.

I wonder, would the minister indicate whether that is the contribution that comes from the employees contribution, or is it the government's contribution, or is it a combination of both? Would the minister indicate where the contribution towards the unfunded liability comes in, or is it reported in this particular statement?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I just wanted to clarify the subsection 2.01.01.

Yes, you are right, the pension contribution has increased to $61.1 million. Again, this is mostly due to the wage increases that have been afforded public sector employees. It is the government contribution towards that. That accounts for the increase, as you can see there, from the revised to the current budget because you had to add on the extra 5 per cent as well.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This doesn't include the extra contribution, I take it, that government is putting in to attempt to address the unfunded liability in the pensions fund based on the agreement with NAPE and CUPE after the public sector strike, where a longer term plan was agreed upon whereby the government would contribute additional funds in addition to the regular employee - now, this is called employee benefits. This is the government matching pension contributions. Does it also include the additional amount of money that government agreed to put in to try to address the unfunded liability?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it does include the extra amount. If you look at the agreement that was more recently signed, as you know there was an extra $20 million allocated to be put in the public service pension plan to start addressing the unfunded liability. In 2002-2003, I think it was done on quarterly payments. This year, in this estimate here, 2003-2004, you see the full $20 million, because it will be for the full four quarters, obviously, incremental.

It does include special payments for the public service pension plan. It also includes the teachers' pension plan, uniformed services, government member purchase plan and MHA pension plan, the whole pension plan program.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Along those lines, we are not dealing with the pension plan fund as a whole. I know there is an annual report to the House of Assembly on the pooled pension funds. The amount, the last time I looked, was in excess of $2.2 billion, that are in the pension plans of this government, including the teachers' pension plan. I don't know if the Memorial University pension plan is included in that or not. In addition to that $2.2 billion, there will be a MUN pension plan which is a separate plan.

This pension plan is managed by the government. Now, I know there have been negotiations about the joint management of that. First of all, I wonder if the minister could tell us where she is with that. Has she come to some agreement with NAPE and CUPE as to the composition of that board? It seems to me to be really a long time coming to a conclusion on that, without resolution, unless the minister has some news for us today. Could she answer that question?

The second question I have - I have mentioned this from time to time over the years and I want to bring it up again. It is something that we, in the NDP, believe should be explored very fully, and that is whether or not we can start looking at the pension plans of this Province as a source of investment within this Province. I know now it is governed by the Trustee Act and most of these funds are invested in perhaps government bonds and debentures, and much of it might end up in the stock markets, whether it is the Toronto Stock Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange. Who knows, there might have been lots of investments in the high-tech industries that took a beating. There may have been investments in Enron. I do not have a list of what the pension funds are in, but we do have an example in Quebec where they have over the years insured that their pension funds, whether it be the general pension funds of the Quebec Government or the so-called Quebec Pension Plan, because they control their own pension monies. The Canada Pension Plan controls the rest of Canada and the Quebec Pension Plan is Quebec's version of that. Those funds are used in a way that is somewhat different than ours in that there are certain rules that are used to ensure that those funds can be invested within, in Quebec's case, the Province of Quebec to assist in making capital investment capital available for economic development activities in the Province of Quebec.

One of the constant refrains of business in this Province is that they do not get a very good shake from the banks, that investment capital is very hard to come by in this Province. This is a constant concern that we have, that we have economic opportunities that are not being pursued because of the shortage of investment capital.

When I brought this up before, Madam Chair, there have been some hints, at least, from certain government members that there was talk about this inside government, that there were plans, but can the minister tell us whether any such consideration has been given to looking at the pension plan rules, looking at the huge amount of pension monies that is there as an investment vehicle. I have mentioned, for example, that this perhaps could be a source of capital to provide a bond to government to provide capital for long-term care homes, for example, in Corner Brook or elsewhere if capital was needed to build these facilities and provide a secure income stream to the pension fund from government to return those funds and pay back, with interest, the kind of returns that the pension fund might get if they bought bonds of the City of Toronto or bonds of the City of Winnipeg, or bonds of some other municipality of which I am sure there are examples within the existing investments of the pension fund. I wonder if the minister could say a few words on that issue, whether her government is actively looking at this issue, what their view is of it, and does she have anything to tell us about that?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, they are two long questions and I will do my best to answer them.

First of all, on the joint trusteeship, the status on that right now, as you know, there is a committee in place to look at developing what the long-term committee would be like and how they would manage decision making. Clearly there is an issue about the unfunded liability; who owns the unfunded liability? I think the view is that government has made a commitment that they own a certain portion of that and they have been making special payments to address that unfunded pension liability and will continue to do so. In fact, just recently increased it in the last collective agreement for an extra $20 million a year; because, as you know, for years and years and years, for all of the 1980s up until Premier Clyde Wells, there was no money actually put into the pension plans to address the money that was spent out of the plan. It has only been in recent years that we have put money in to try to address the unfunded liability, and we have made some progress. Albeit the markets have not helped us this year, we took a significant hit this year in the pension plan as a result of investments and poor interest rates and everything that people are experiencing in their own small investments. As I said, if you are lucky enough to have any. That is where we are with the joint trusteeship.

With respect to how we spend the pension plan, we have a group in place called Frank Russell and they do our pension investment, as you know right now. We still have a Pension Investment Committee. Government is the sole trustee at the moment and we are working towards joint trusteeship. We have a very clear asset mix, very clear, defined guidelines on how we would spend that money. For example, 5 per cent to 10 per cent is in real estate. Most of it is in fixed assets, very secure kinds of investments.

What are our plans? I think, based on the fact that we have given a commitment to move to a joint trusteeship, our plans would be to wait until we get that committee in place to make any plans, because once you acknowledge that you are going to jointly manage a fund, really government is not in a position to say how they are going to spend the money at this point because I think you would breaching the intent of what you agreed to do. However, I can say, in pension funds whereby they do have very, very fluid or liquid kind of policies with respect to investment, I think the one thing that you will find time and time again is that these are 100 per cent funded plans. As you know, we are barely at 50 per cent funding and I suspect that, based on this year's fiscal and financial statements, we have lost a significant portion from our pension fund because of the markets. We are probably still hovering at the 50 per cent funded mark.

Before we would put the risk of the people of the Province, the pensioners, there for people to decide how they are going to invest, I think we would all have feel fairly confident that the money we have is safe, that it continues to grow. Our goal, as a government, is to continue to reassure the people of the Province that they will have a pension plan and that it will be guaranteed by the people of the Province, so you have to be very careful on how you spend the money, how you invest the money.

As you know, we have aging workforce, we have more people drawing down on our pension plans. As a result of that, right now we are not making any plans to diversify our pension plan and how we spend that money until we get a higher level of confidence and security to moving towards a more funded pension plan. Really, that is our plan for now.

If we were to move there, we would move in that direction, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in a joint trusteeship, partnership way. It would be government's suggestion, because if we are moving that way I think it is only fair that we would do it in a joint management way.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is interesting that the minister uses the words: spend the pension funds. That is not what I am talking about at all. I mean, we are talking about investment rules, investment policies and choices that are made as to where we invest our pension fund in terms of the kind of return we get.

The minister talked about how they are very concerned about having secure investments, fixed investments, and that sort of thing. If we had that, Madam Chair, we would not have been taking the hits that the minister talked about with the markets. The markets are volatile, we do know that, but the markets for government bonds, for municipal bonds, for guarantees of municipalities or other provinces' bonds, is not fluid and volatile. There have not been losses in that market, particularly in Canadian bonds. I am pretty sure that when the joint trusteeship or the joint management takes place that there will be rules that are not necessarily - it is not going to be left up to the trustees to decide what the investment rules are going to be, what the mix is going to be. There are going to have to be some sort of guidelines, I would think, that government would have to set down.

An investment policy, under current rules - and if you look at the Trustee Act, the Trustee Act has always been brought forward as a barrier to this type of investment decision, where you are saying that the trustees of a pension plan, that 5 per cent or 8 per cent or 10 per cent of their investment should be in, say, Newfoundland government bonds or Newfoundland municipal bonds or something like that, which is essentially giving some direction to an investment committee that they have to dedicate a certain amount of their investment, or make it available at least, to a particular sector or to a particular investment type.

What I am arguing for, Madam Chair, is some direction that would loosen the bonds of the Trustee Act, that would allow a Newfoundland government pension to be invested in, say, Newfoundland government bonds. That is totally different from what happened here in the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1950s and the 1960s, where previous governments in this Province took money from employees, as their contribution towards their pension, never contributed a cent to it, to create a fund, but took the money that the employees had contributed and went ahead and spent that, and never created a fund in the first place. As time went on, of course, the obligation to pay pensions grew and grew and grew and the availability of a fund to pay those pensions was non-existent. Not only was government not making its own contribution to a fund, which is a normal procedure that the employees pay half and the government pays a matching contribution, there was no matching contribution made and the money that was taken from employees' payrolls was actually spent on roads and bridges and schools and government services. That is what was done then. What we are doing now is trying to get ourselves out of that situation.

I have to say that the last public service strike, the contribution of CUPE and NAPE to this process in helping to let government find a way out of the mess that they had gotten themselves in, was a very significant one. They brought in pensions experts from their expertise to help government work their way through that, and, I understand, were very helpful in showing the way.

We are going to go beyond that, Madam Chair, and suggest to government that now we do have 50 per cent, or more than 50 per cent already funded - we do have a considerable pool of money, in access of $2 billion. What I am saying to the minister and to the government is that we have $2 billion, can we not ensure that if we need capital - and the Minister of Health is looking over. He wants to build a long-term care facility in Corner Brook. We want him to build a long-term care facility in Corner Brook, but he said: We do not have the money. We are going to have to go to the private sector. The private sector will borrow at a much higher rate and we will pay the freight. As people in this Province, we will be forced to pay the freight and pay for that profit, pay for that higher cost, and pay all of those costs.

What I am suggesting is that we have, as assets of this government in the pooled pension funds, a significant amount of dollars that are available for investment. They are now invested in Ontario; they are invested in New York; they are invested in Chicago; they are invested in the stock markets. This government is saying: We do not have the money to build long-term care facilities. What I am suggesting is, we do have the money. In fact, if some of that capital was made available to the Province to build a long-term facility - and I am not talking about taking the money out of the fund. I am talking about a bond. I am talking about the purchase of a government bond with interest; with an obligation to repay that fund with interest instead of paying it to someone else. We are paying it to our own pension fund at an equitable rate based on what -

MR. SULLIVAN: The same rate a fund can get on the market.

MR. HARRIS: The same rate a fund might get on the market from a municipal bond from the City of Toronto, or the City of Brampton, or the City of Calgary. We are probably holding significant numbers of bonds of municipalities across the country in that fund right now.

What I am suggesting to the minister is - not that we start spending the money, not at all. What I am suggesting is that we do have the money. I am suggesting that we make that money available as an investment in this Province with secure returns, with fixed returns, with guaranteed returns, because we know - and the minister would be responsible for ensuring, if that is the case, that those funds will be repaid with interest the same as they might get with a similar investment in the market. That is what I am suggesting to the minister. I am not suggesting that we open up the pension fund. The minister seemed to the scaremongering a little bit. We do not want to frighten people into thinking that this money is to going to be spent. What I am suggesting is that this money not be spent, that it be invested in bonds for this Province to make available capital to build needed facilities, such as long-term care facilities in Corner Brook.

I wish the minister would acknowledge that we are not talking about risky investment. We are not talking about venture capital. We are not talking about taking the pension fund and saying we are going to get into the most risky form of investment, so-called venture capital, to facilitate risky ventures and hope that we might make some money. I am talking about secure investment. I am talking about taking our savings, the savings of the people of this Province which are in the pension fund for their retirement, and using those savings to allow us to do things that we need to do and get a steady, secure and high rate of return for the pension fund. Would the minister consider that as a different type of investment than the kind of high-risk investments that she is now saying are costing the pool pension fund money because we have taken a hit from the market and we have taken a hit from the volatile stock market that a lot of our funds are invested in now? Is the minister prepared to be perhaps a little bit more cautious in terms of what the rules might be so that we will not be losing money in a volatile stock market and may have more secure fixed investments, such as what I am talking about here?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I am quite clear on the member's suggestion, but I also - and I do not make any assumption that the pension would be spent because I know that is not legal for starters. It could not be spent. It has to be invested.

I think what is clear is that I do not think we should mislead the people into thinking we have a whole load of savings. We are less than 50 per cent funded in our pension plan. If you talk and compare it with the pension plan in Ontario, or any of the other huge pension plans, they are 100 per cent funded. What that means is that everything they get - they are able to pay for everyone who goes out on pension if they wanted to go out today, plus they have interest and investments that they can use. So, what we are saying is that because we are not funded - and the reason is because for all of the 1980s the money that was put into the pension plan was spent. It is only since the 1990s, with the Liberal Administration, that we have actually been putting money back to pay for the pension plan - for all the money that was spent over the years.

I spoke about this the other night. I spoke about connect my dots, and look at what is happening when you look at all of the things that has happened in the Province. If you look at how our pension plan - how our pension funds were spent. It has only been since this Administration, with the Liberal Administration, that we have been actually putting lump sum payments back into the pension plan. I might add, employees as well are paying higher contributions because they recognize that they have to increase their contribution to maintain the benefits that they are receiving. Now, I do not think there is anybody out there who would not want to use savings and investments in our own Province, if we have the ability to do it. What I am saying is that right now government is still the sole trustee of the pension plan. We are working towards joint management of the pension plan. When we get to that, those decisions will be made jointly, that is what I am saying, not by government but jointly. If we decide to change the investment strategy and to move into more real estate versus less real estate, or more government bonds or less government bonds, or go into a different kind of volatile market, that would be something that would be decided by both parties. At this point in time, we have a fixed asset mix that is set out and run by a group called Frank Russell, who does the pension administration for us currently. We are working with the unions on this issue.

I would say to the member opposite, it is not that we would not want to invest the money, when we talk about the savings, but we also recognize that when you are at 50 per cent or slightly less funded it means that you cannot cover the full cost of the pension plan. We are working to continue to build towards receiving or being at 50 per cent funding.

We know we have an aging workforce. We know more and more people are drawing down their pension. We know in the next four to six years we have a large number of people in the public service retiring. Our number one commitment to the people of the Province is to ensure that we are able to sustain, maintain and guarantee our pension plans. That is a commitment that we have made and that is a commitment that we will keep.

I think before we look at diversifying investments or changing the asset mix, a couple of things have to happen. I think, first of all, the main thing is that we have to move to a joint trusteeship and those decisions will be made jointly, not by government, who is currently the trustee. Secondly, it has to be done on sound, fiscal, management, practices, good advice where, if we are going to change how we invest and use some of those investments here in our own Province instead of other investments, that would be again a joint decision that would be made. There is no decision made not to do it - that we would not look at doing it. The situation right now is that we are not at a joint trusteeship. I think it would be bad faith to go and make that kind of a decision when you are actually in the process of trying to move forward with joint trusteeship and management of our pension plan.

My view is that the committee would be open to any number of suggestions. Any way we can improve investments, increase our savings and move towards a fully funded pension plan is a place we want to go. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that we are like Ontario with 100 per cent funding in our pension plan. It has not happened. We know why it has not happened. We have made a commitment to address it and we will continue to do that. Until then, we will prudently manage the pension plans and move towards joint trusteeship with all the partners involved.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do not know where the minister is coming from on this. She is saying, first of all, that we do not spend the money because it would be illegal to do so, and then she says throughout the 1980s they spent all the money. Was it illegal then? The government of day, were they illegal? Was the Liberal government of the 1950s and 1960s illegal as well when they spent the money?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he understands the rationale. Prior to the 1980s there was no pension plan. All of the money and all of the contributions that were made were spent by the government of the day as part of general revenue. It was only after the fund was put in place that the Liberal Administration started paying back allocations of money, $163 million in some cases, to try to rebuild and address the unfunded liability to contributions that were not made in the 1980s.

That is the point I am making, and the member opposite knows that. I am not saying it is illegal to do it. I am saying that what we have to do right now is that we are not going to arbitrarily change the investment mix we have because we are in the process of working towards a joint management. If I did that, the member opposite would be the first one to stand up and say we were acting in bad faith because we are in the process of negotiating with the unions towards a joint trusteeship. Is it possible we would do it? Absolutely, if that is the decision of the joint trusteeship, but as the sole trustee right now, as Minister of Finance, I am not about to change the asset mix when we are in the middle of negotiations towards a joint trusteeship. That would show a full lack of respect, I think, to all the partners. It may happen, but it is not going to happen until we decide one way or the other that we are going to go with the joint trusteeship or we are not. You would never do that in mid-course and I know the member opposite recognizes that you spend the money based on the asset mix that has been set out for the pension plan under the current Pension Plan Investment Committee.

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

MR. HARRIS: Clearly, there is no point of order.

I made it quite clear that I understand why the pension fund is unfunded. It is unfunded because government took employee contributions and spent them. There was a pension plan; there was just no pension fund. Now we have a pension fund and the minister says, because it is only 50 per cent funded, that we cannot decide how to invest it. That is nonsense! It is nonsense!

Just because Ontario's may or may not be, I do not know if it is fully funded or not, it does not make any difference. If it is 50 per cent funded you still have $2 billion; you still have to decide how to invest it. If you were saving for your own retirement and you only had half enough money to retire, what would you do, say you cannot invest this because I only have half enough money to retire? You still have to decide what you are going to do with the money. You still have to have investment rules. Even if it is a joint trusteeship, you have to have an opinion for your own half of that joint trusteeship.

My question was: Is government interested? Has government considered it? Do they have any plans to ensure that the money, the savings that are being put into this pension plan, whether it be 50 percent, 54 per cent, 28 per cent, 93 per cent invested, or fully funded, is that something that is going to be used for the benefit of the people of this Province not just as savings for retirement and for providing for retirement but also as a means by which we can, in fact, have capital to do the things that need to be done? If we do not get them here we might have to get them somewhere else and we might have to pay more money to get them somewhere else.

That is the point that I am making, Madam Chair, and the issues that the minister is talking about really do not affect the ability of the government to have an opinion on these matters, to have a position on these matters, and to be able to say that they are interested in pursuing this, whether they are pursuing it on their own. I can see why the minister would say, well, we want to wait and see what this partnership is going to produce, but going to that table will be the minister or whoever the minister is, and the officials, saying, here is what we think, as government, that this is a source of capital. Here is what we think the investment rules should be, and in fact it is certainly open to the government to lay down, through legislation, the policies, the significant investment policies, for the pension fund, because it has an overall responsibility to the people of the Province. The minister is really avoiding the question.

I want to leave that. I see that we are getting close to an hour where we might adjourn, but there is another category here that I would like to ask the minister to address and that is the head 2.1.02 Ex-Gratia and Other Payments-Non-Statutory, which is described here as being, "Appropriations provide for special retirement and other payments approved by Treasury Board." Ex-gratia, to me, means that they are not required to be paid; they are non-statutory. In other words, they are above and beyond any requirement to satisfy a pension plan or existing pension plan to which a person might be entitled. We see an expenditure in excess of $7.5 million - $7.6 million to be exact - comparable to the expenditure last year of $7.8 million. This is the amount of money that is spent above and beyond the requirement of statute. It seems to be related to providing benefits to employees who are retiring.

I want to know, Minister, is this where money would come to provide additional funds? We had a question raised in the House the other day about a deputy minister being given additional funds above and beyond what the pension plan would provide for. Is this the pot that the government uses to sweeten the pot for certain people, or to provide a way of getting people out of government who they want to get out? How many people benefit from the $7.6 million that the government is proposing to spend in the coming year, or could the minister explain how this allocation is made, what various categories are that might be comprised of it, what is the bulk of the expenditure for, or give us a little breakdown other than a figure of $7.5 million?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

First, I would like to say to the member that government will clearly come to the table with respect to pension investments. It is not a problem, but I think again out of respect for the process, right now government is the sole trustee. We have been working with an investment firm for a number of years and I think we have managed the pension fund quite prudently and moved it up from about 39 per cent to 50 per cent funding. We will continue to do that as long as we are sole trustee. In the interim, we are working towards a joint trusteeship and government would have no problem looking at how, and if, we plan to change our investment scheme, the asset mix as it is called, if, in fact, we do work towards a joint trusteeship. Again, I will say that I am not prepared to discuss that in the middle of negotiations when we are trying to come forward with a joint trusteeship. I think everybody could respect that part of the process.

With respect to the ex-gratia payments, most of these - and I think the member might have asked the same question last year, in fact, these ex-gratia payments are, again, statutory payments and gratuities that are paid out, and many have been placed for many, many years. Some of them include ex-gratia payments to the Hartt Report, which was a special pension plan that was available to the members of the Waterford Hospital, many of whom have passed on and the amounts are declining, but it is a special pension plan that members from the Waterford Hospital, as a result of the Hartt Report after a lengthy strike, if I remember correctly, were granted, and it is paid not out of the regular pension plan but out of this pension plan particularly.

There is also an allocation under this amount for workers' compensation benefits that were paid out long before the commission was involved. It accounts for people over the age of sixty-five for their benefits, and I think many of them were around for a long period of time. Again, this is an old benefit. Also, it includes ex-gratia payments for widows, and it provides them with survivor benefits, many of whom were widows long before we changed the legislation to come in line with human rights and how it respects spouses in terms of death on the job. Many of these widows were left in very hard shape financially and, as a result of that, government put in place a widow's ex-gratia pension plan.

It also covers off pay equity payments that were allocated but had not been paid. I think the final amounts there should be close to being paid up and there are some challenges, as well, that are outstanding. That is mostly what it covers, and also severance. If there is severance, it is covered off under this particular piece. With respect to the other components, that is what this allocation is for.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The minister said statutory payments. I gather - the head here says non-statutory. In other words, it is over and above statutory requirements. I am familiar with the Waterford Hospital provisions and some of the others. I wonder if the minister could say whether this would be the type of budget head where the minister would have to find money for a decision by government such as, for example, was made up until 1989 to provide increases to existing pensioners. We have had a lot of demonstrations over the last number of years - not very many recently, since the pensioners were forced out in the cold - to increase the public service pensions, an issue that is yet to be fully resolved.

We also have an ongoing request - I know government has, and members have, and parties have - from the Retired Teachers' Association, talking about the position of many of their members on very, very low pension benefits. Is this the head where government would find that money, or would it be expected that the additional increases or payments that had been, as we all know, a regular feature of government year after year after year to increase public service pensions, along with general wage increase for public service up until the Liberal government took power. The last payment of that nature was made in 1989, I believe.

We have had that debate over the years and we have now recently heard from retired school teachers, many of whom are receiving a very low pension. I know, when this was stopped by the Wells government, the reason given was the pension funds were underfunded and we couldn't afford it. Clearly, here we have a place where benefits that aren't statutorily required, that are plans by government such as providing for survivor benefits for certain categories that weren't otherwise included. Is this where the minister would look in terms of a head of budget for payments that might be able to be made to retired teachers to increase their pension or to existing public service retirees? Is that where government would look, or is this something that the government is only looking at in the context of the unfunded liability in the teachers' pension fund and in the public service pension fund?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

This wouldn't be the head, because it has never been the head for ad hoc pension increases. I think when it was done, back fourteen or fifteen years ago, it was done as part of the general revenue. It was never done under this heading to the best of my knowledge. It is certainly not there now.

I would say to the member, that we have met with pensioners, both teachers and with the public service pensioners. I know they have raised it at the beginning, the whole prospect of a joint management committee on pensions. They are going to bring their views forward and try to have it addressed in that forum.

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

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

Madam Chair, I want to direct the minister's attention to section 2.4.01, on page 18, of the Office of the Executive Council. This is the appropriations here for the promotion of public awareness of provincial government programs, policies and services for the administration and coordination of government's electronic communications services.

I do note that the Salaries here have gone up a little bit but not very much. I assume that is the normal increments. However, looking at the Professional Services here, we allocated last year $80,000, and Purchased Services, $45,000, allocated this year. When the government had the promotion last autumn -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, subhead 2.4.01, page 18, under Communications and Consultation.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much.

MR. H. HODDER: Last autumn when the Premier was doing extensive advertising, promoting the government's initiatives, or I guess as many people would say, promoting himself, trying to enhance his electability, probably. We do know, from the admission of the Premier, that this was costing $30,000 a week. The total amount expended was in excess of $250,000. I am wondering where that money came from? It does not seem to be reflected here. Was that reflected over a number of departments? It is not reflected here, which is the allocation for the promotion of public awareness of the provincial government programs. Where would that have been reflected in the budget for last year? Where would that be found, I guess, in the estimates for this year in terms of any other government program it might be planning on advertising?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I guess, as the member pointed out, good things were happening in many departments. Therefore, the budget for the various departments would be used to pull together all of the accomplishments of government as it relates to the last number of months and years.

As you can see, and have pointed out, the budget for this department is constant. It has not increased. I would imagine that some portion may have gone to that, but other departments throughout government - as I am sure you would have asked in other Estimate Committee meetings - would have used their communications budgets to do similar kinds of things to actually highlight for the people of the Province the kind of initiatives that are undertaken in each of the various departments of government.

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

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

Madam Minister, does that mean that there can be $250,000 or $300,000 that can be found in various departments, whereby later on this year we can have, again, an expenditure of $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 that would be coming out of departments, which would be in essence used to advertise - in this particular case I refer to last autumn's advertisements at $30,000 a week? Is that kind of fund readily available in all departments so we can have that kind of thing happen again? The ministers, in giving their estimates to the Minister of Finance, would certainly have to indicate what they plan to do. Are you suggesting there is that kind of cushion? That we could have that kind of money floating around in departments? We could again have that kind of waste of public expenditure in government whereby we could spend $300,000 and that money could be found in each government department at the whim of the Premier, if he wishes to go on another advertising campaign?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much.

I hear the member's question. What I will say to the member opposite is that the subheading covers Transportation and Communications, as it does in every department. Every department again, has an allocation for this, as you know. You would have seen this through all of the Estimates Committee. I am sure that you had an opportunity to ask in the subheadings you were involved in with various ministers and what they were planning to do with their money. I think most ministers would have said to you that this is for the normal operations of government. I think it is important to note and remember that each of our departments achieved an 8 per cent and 5 per cent reduction last year, with the exception of the Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Justice, for obvious reasons. I do not want anyone out there believing, based on your double question there, that this is an inflated, cushioned area because it is not. I think we have been very clear on our commitments. We focused on health care and not achieving the 5 per cent and 8 per cent reduction in health care.

We know the issues that have been brought forward by the Minister of Justice and the RNC - those issues have been recognized, respected and addressed. I say to the member opposite who points out in the beginning of his questioning, that this allocation has not increased so therefore I think it is a safe assumption to make that this allocation is used for the normal transportation and communications of the Office of the Executive Council. There is nothing more added to that. Whatever you want to read into it, I guess, is there to be read into it; but what is there is there. It is based on the normal allocations that were there as of last year as well as this year.

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

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

In essence, what we saying is that there are no further protections of the public purse in place this year when it comes to advertising of government's programs than there were last year, so that we cannot expect, if the Premier should decided he wishes to go on another, you know, quarter of a million dollar advertising campaign, then he can find that money in various departments. He found it last year and there are no more guarantees this year than there were last year. We read the minister as having said that, because she said that the same programs that are possible to -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: With all due respect to the Member for Waterford Valley, I do not need you to rephrase what I said. I think people heard what I said, and what I said was that this is an allocation for transportation and communications as every department has it. Now, I guess how the department or how the Executive Council has indicated they are going to use that this year, that is how it will be used. I am here to answer the questions and tell you, as you have so much pointed out correctly, that the allocation has not increased. Maybe the Premier will use that to highlight the resolution he is bringing forward in the House of Assembly tomorrow to try to take on the federal government and finally get our fair place in this Constitution of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Maybe that is what he will do with it, and if he does I support him 100 per cent as do we over here.

Maybe he will use it to garner more support provincially as well as federally as well as internationally. I do not know. Maybe he will use it to hire former Premier Brian Peckford for his expertise on the area. I am not sure. However, I can say that the allocation is there, it has not changed from last year, and I think that every department has an allocation for both transportation and communications. I can say that in every department, almost without exception, the exact amount of allocation was not used last year and it was returned to the general revenue. So, contrary to what you are trying to portray, I think it shows that our officials have shown good control, they have shown good discretion and we have put all of the money back in general revenue and that is why we have been able to put the extra money into Health and Justice so that they did not have to achieve an 8 per cent and 5 per cent reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Madam Chair, I certainly would not want to leave the impression that the officials have anything to do with the decision-making process. The decision as to whether the government engages in an advertising program is purely a political one and that is the responsibility of the Premier and the Members of the Cabinet.

We could move to section 2.5.01. I did note that under Salaries, under Financial Administration - this is the appropriations for the financial and administrative support of the Executive Council, the Department of Finance, the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and the Public Service Commission. Last year, the amount spent was $506,200. This year I notice that is it up to $570,800. What would cause the increase from the revised figure for the last fiscal year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Finance.

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

The rationale for it being revised lower last year was because we had a vacant position. That position now is filled. In addition to that, it covers the normal wage increases that have been put in place with the 15 per cent wage increase that government negotiated.

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

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

Under the same section, under Purchased Services, last year there was a budgeted amount of $73,000, the actual was $55,000, but it is back to $73,000 this year. Could the minister comment as to what happened for the amount to be decreased and then why would it be up again to $73,000, which was the amount that was allocated last year but not spent?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I guess, as I have pointed out fairly consistently this afternoon, the budget allocation for last year is the same budget allocation as this year. The reason that there was less spent was simply because there was less needed to be spent. The rationale for that was because there were less photocopier repairs and maintenance required last year than anticipated. Hopefully, we will have another good year with the photocopier.

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

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

Madam Minister, I notice under the section, the Strategic Social Plan, 2.6.01., Appropriations for implementation of the Province's Strategic Social Plan, that the amount here for salaries has gone up by approximately $225,000 over last year. Last year's amount of the expenditure was exactly the amount of the budget. I am wondering what would cause there to be in excess of $200,000 more spent on the Strategic Social Plan in this coming year than last year, given the fact that we are now into the fifth year of the adoption of the Strategic Social Plan. It is for the Minister of Health. I see he is looking for his notes there. It is on page 19, Office of the Executive Council. The item here is 2.6.01.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The hon. member is referencing an increase in the budget. I am not sure, because the overall budget for the SSP, in fact, has not increased. It is, in fact, the same as it has been for the last number of years. It is still at $2 million, which is the total budget for the SSP. The overall budget for the SSP has not changed.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Chair, that is not the point of my question. The point of my question is not whether the overall allocation has changed. What happened in the implementation of the Strategic Social Plan that we were able to have salary allocations last year of $1,014,200, but this year we need to have $1,239,100. Really, we are spending $225,000 more in this fiscal year than we spent last year.

The question is not about the total amount for this particular vote on the Strategic Social Plan, but why would we be spending more on salaries this coming year than we did last year. What special programs, or what initiatives, is the department planning that would cause this to happen?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Certainly, there were negotiated wage increases. There were also some reclassifications that would be reflected in that as well. These would be normal things within government. These people are entitled to the same benefits as everyone else who works for the public sector. So that would be primarily what would be reflected in those increases.

Again, in terms of the staffing generally, the salaries that are there, just for the hon. member's benefit, just to break it out, it is headed up by a ADM. The person, who is the head of the unit, is at the ADM level. We have seven people in the SSP office, community account staff of six, and up to twelve regional staff, so a total, overall, of some twenty-six people who would come out of that particular area.

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

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

If I could move over to Treasury Board Secretariat, the subhead is 3.1.02 on page 21. "Appropriations provide for senior level advice on financial, personnel and administrative functions of Government to the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet...".

Last year, under the Professional Services, .05, we had an allocation of $25,000. The revised figure says that there is also $25,000, but the estimate this year is $314,200. What could happen to make this number go up by seven or eight times, or more than ten times, twelve times as high?

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

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

There is a significant increase in this area. As you know, Treasury Board oversees many of the departments of government as it relates not only to collective bargaining but also to spending practices and trying to ensure a better fiscal management of their various expenditures.

Particularly for this year, this is around doing a more in-depth study on our home support program, looking at our drug program, because one of the things that we have found, for example, in our drug program, is that about 75 per cent of all of the prescriptions are utilized by 25 per cent of the recipients, issues like that which really need to be looked at, delved into, assessed and evaluated for the safety and security of the whole drug program, for example.

What we have done, in fact, we are very pleased to have a new member join our staff from the Auditor General's Office who will be doing fairly in-depth studies that relate to the drug program, home support program specifically, and looking at some of our other boards and how they are operated in the Province.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Since this falls under Professional Services, I assume the minister is saying that this analysis of the home support program will be done by the staff of the department, or staffed directly, or will part of this be done by consultation which will be done by outside professionals, independent of the government?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

 

It will be overseen by officials in my department with expertise in those particular areas, and also with various departments that they refer to particularly. It will be a combination of public consultations and also outside work, obviously, with people who have the expertise in this particular area. It would obviously make sense, for example, if you were going to do an analysis on the drug program, having the expertise of pharmacists, physicians with that expertise, and also with accountants, and doing the whole gamut of the research to give the best advice possible.

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

MR. H. HODDER: If I could move for my final question to page 22 under Employee Relations.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What subheading is that?

MR. H. HODDER: It is subheading 3.1.04 and it is under Employee Relations. "Appropriations provide for collective bargaining, classification and organization and management reviews...".

I notice that Salaries last year were $872,400, the revised figure, but this year it is increased to well over $1 million. Is there something there that we should be aware of in terms of the expectation that there will be more monies needed in the collective bargaining area this coming year, or is this just a routine expenditure with allocations for the step program of employees with, of course, again the 15 per cent allocation of monies for negotiated salary benefits?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

Obviously $1 million is never routine, as we all know. What it does involve, and I think for more specifics, there were a number of vacancies last year. They are going to be filled this year. If you look at the budget, if you look at the $966,000 that was allocated for the Collective Bargaining Division, you can see that the revised number was less. That is because we had a vacancy. Then, if you look at this year's projection, you will see that the increase over $1 million is to cover off, as you pointed out, the five, five and five wage increases to collective bargaining staff.

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

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

Madam Chair, I cannot miss the opportunity to go to the Opening Doors section, which is a program that I think is very commendable to the government, to any government, when we are making it possible for people with disabilities to enter the labour market and be able to function effectively and meaningfully. I did note that last year, however, we did have an allocation of $2,095,700, somewhat down from the allocation which was in the Budget last year, by approximately $300,000, that was not expended last year. This year the allocation is $2,699,600, up substantially from what was spent last year, by approximately $700,000. I wonder if the minister could give some explanation for that. Are we going to be having new programs or are we going to be employing more people within the public service who would qualify for employment under the Opening Doors Program.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I, too, want to speak in strong support of this Opening Doors Program. It is a program that we are very proud of in government and I know the member is a well, because he has raised it a number of times. The rationale for the decline last year was because we had a fair bit of turnover and they were delayed in filling the positions. I am very happy to announce that the reason the increase is there is because we will be hiring twenty new positions in the Opening Doors Program, and we are very pleased with that.

Let me give you a breakdown, for your benefit. It relates to seventy-one permanent positions and we are very pleased and delighted with the Opening Doors Program.

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

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

Madam Minister, the Opening Doors Program is a commendable program, however, there is always some question as to whether or not there are equal opportunities for people with disabilities who live in rural Newfoundland. I am wondering if there is a program in place to increase the access, under the Opening Doors Program, for people living in rural Newfoundland to be able to have the same opportunities to be employed as, say, we have in the urban center, particularly in the St. John's-Mount Pearl and greater Avalon region.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

As I pointed out, this is for seventy-one permanent positions. We don't discriminate on where they live, but based on their qualifications. We have had people from all around the Province avail of the service, and we are quite pleased with that. We don't say: Because you don't live in St. John's you can't get the job. We go on the qualifications. We have excellent qualified people who have filled positions. In fact, they have used our positions here for stepping stones to move on to even better jobs within our Province. We are quite proud of that.

It is an equal opportunity program, and we can always improve it. We can always add more. That is what I would like to see happen. We will continue to do that, because it is an excellent program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

A couple of comments related to Executive Council, in particular, dealing with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. I was thinking about where he is not moving a motion to reduce the salary to a dollar, but I will not do that to the minister. To my honourable and learned colleague, I will not do that, but the Minister of Education seems to be putting his hand up. Maybe he would like to move the motion.

But in all seriousness, under -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the hon. Government House Leader, we just moved and passed that he is now one of the most outstanding volunteers to Newfoundland and Labrador ever in his new capacity with his new salary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, it always nice to introduce a bit of levity into debate because, you know, we debate serious issues here most, if not all, the time.

I just have a few questions because we do not have a lot of time left on this aspect of the Budget Debate. On page 17, under the minister's department, subhead 2.3.03. It is under the heading called Policy Analysis and Coordination. Now the explanation, Madam Chair, in this section is that we are asked to pass $723,600. This House is being asked to do that today. The explanation for that, it says: Appropriations provide for the review and analysis of intergovernmental issues relating to social, fiscal, resource and economic policy, constitutional and francophone affairs, and for the coordination of intergovernmental negotiations in those areas.

I would like to ask the minster this, obviously, that if any discussions have taken place between himself and his counterparts in other provinces - by his counterparts, I mean other ministers of intergovernmental affairs and their staff and their associated departments. Obviously, it is out of this subhead where the expenditure would be made. Minister, in responding to my comment, I wonder if you could answer just a couple of questions related to that. The salaries that you are asking us to pass are $627,000. People, out of that salary vote, right now are working on the Constitutional amendment as it relates to ensuring in the Constitution shared jurisdiction in the fishery. What communications have taken place with respect to that issue between you and your counterparts and/or your deputy minister and assistant deputy minister and other officials with other provincial governments to date to advance Newfoundland and Labrador's cause?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say the hon. Opposition House Leader that the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs is quite involved in the present circumstance, in the present resolution, and they would be working in conjunction with other departments, particularly with the Department of Fishery, and particularly with the Premier. There is not a visit to Ottawa with a minister but the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs is involved.

I want to say this to the hon. Opposition House Leader, that even though this work is now in progress and we are ready to launch a strategy, we have tried to be circumspect about this and not to do too much other than the Ottawa contacts at this moment because we do not want to presume what this House would do. I know when I contact my counterparts I want to be able to say that I have the support of the House. This is the voice of Newfoundland and Labrador speaking. I can tell the hon. member, that after the resolution, if it is passed - because I do not want to assume that it is, I am believing that it will be. But when I go to my colleagues I want to go with the support of this House; telling them what happened, what the outcome of the debate was. As I said, I have the support, and I think that is a courtesy to this House.

I want to say to the hon. member, that outside of Mr. Dion, outside of the Intergovernmental Affairs federal, I have not done anything in terms of making any initial contacts because I want to wait until tomorrow's vote. Then I shall be out having the work done by my department. I can assure the hon. member that will be done. We will not be wanting for materials or policies or whatever. These officials will have that in place.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Well, I did not get the answer in Question Period when I asked, but I got it just now. Nobody has been contacted. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has not contacted anybody in other provinces with respect to the proposition put forward by the Premier in the resolution. The last time that I checked, and the last time that people checked in this Province, they would know this, that there is not a person in this House who does not agree with the notion of enshrining in the Constitution of the country an amendment that would give us shared jurisdiction.

Madam Chair, having said that, it is now 5:29 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Education, anytime that you want to debate the issue, not a problem. You name the time, you name the place. There is one thing for sure, I will be there, I say to the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You need not worry about me showing up to debate you on that or any other issue, I say to the Member for Twillingate, whether that is here, whether it is in your own district, whether it is in your own town. No matter where in Newfoundland and Labrador, you name the time, name the place and I will be there, I say to the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, it now be 5:29 p.m., we are about to adjourn until 7:00 p.m. I move adjournment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.

 


May 13, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 21A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Butler): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, prior to the suppertime recess we were dealing with the Estimates in the House, Heads of Expenditures, Consolidated Revenue Fund, Executive Council, which includes the Premier's Office, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Legislature.

If I can for a few moments, Mr. Chair, refer back to - and these sorts of enquiries will be going to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. On page 6 of the Budget Estimates, and in particular subhead 1.1.06 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hang on, now.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not a problem. While the minister is finding that, I can talk about it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Is that under Consolidated Funds?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it is. The minister has asked if it is under Consolidated Fund Services. It is.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Subhead 1.1.06?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, 1.1.06, dealing with Recoveries on Loans and Advances.

Last year in the Budget, government estimated that it would recover on loans and advances - let me first of all just give the explanation that will put my question into context. Under this section it says, under this subhead, "Appropriations provide for interest paid to the Province on loans to various public and private entities, as well as interest collected on loans by the Province's various lending agencies."

Last year, and I assume - I say to the minister, she can make the general comment - that is the 1 per cent fee that we put on loans outstanding to Crown corporations, whether it be the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission, or whether it be to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The minister can expound on what Crown agencies and private entities, and interest collected on loans by the Province as to various other lending agencies because it would be interesting to see and she can provide that detail. I know it is provided in some detail in the Budget Estimates, but even more so.

Last year the government estimated, around Budget time, that it would collect, I believe it is $1,539,100 on those loans. The revised figures show that they actually collected $1,836,100.

The first question would be: What was the difference in terms of what was estimated, and why was there a rise of about $300,000, approximately, in extra revenue that came in?

The second question is this: Government this year have estimated they will collect $1,041,800, which is substantially down from the year previous. I would like the minister, if she could, to provide an explanation of why that estimate is down.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I would be happy to provide an explanation. This is the provincial revenues that we collect. A lot of these relate to the interest that is paid to the Province from various public and private entities. Some of them go back to the mid-1980s, as far as I can recall. There is a significant amount that is collected from the St. John's regional sewer system, and that covers all of the sewer system out from Paradise and surrounding areas. It also covers collections from former lending agencies that are now defunct. The Fisheries Loan Board is one, the Farm Loan Board, and the former ENL. As you know, most of those outstanding ones now are transferred to the Department of ITRD and that is where they are collected. So this year the estimates specifically are for 2003-2004.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is where the birch comes in, isn't it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No there is no birch in this one, I would say to my colleague here.

There is estimated $81 million to be collected from the St. John's regional sewer system and there is another $960,000 collected from the Department of Rural Renewal and Development, associated with the collection of outstanding loans, particularly around the St. John's regional sewer system. The majority of this is around payments from Paradise as it relates to the sewage system there.

With respect to the other loans, a lot of them are outstanding. You can see the amount is declining because some of them now are quite old and the principal is decreasing so obviously the interest payments are also lower.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The minister referenced in her comments that included in this subhead would be interest collected from loans, say, with the Fisheries Loan Board or Farm Loan Board. How much is outstanding for each of those loan boards when they were in existence? For example, how much money is owed to government from the Fisheries Loan Board? What is outstanding in terms of principal and interest from that particular loan board? With respect to the Farm Loan Board, could the minister elaborate on the very same question? What is outstanding from the old Farm Loan Board in both principal and interest?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I can give you two breakdowns. One is for the St. John's regional sewer system, which this year we collected $81,800, and for the Department of Development and Rural Renewal for the total amount was $960,000 - almost $1 million.

I will ask the officials to provide the breakdown of all of the areas. I did not ask for all of the specific breakdown. The only thing I can tell you is that the interest payments are decreasing because the principals have decreased; and some of them, as you can imagine, are nearly completely gone because obviously they have been in place since the eighties, some of them twenty or twenty-five years old. Our obligation is to continue to collect as long as we can, and I will certainly - because I have an official outside and I will ask him, if possible, to submit the various breakdowns with the actual amounts left owing in terms of interest owing to government as soon as possible and I will provide it to you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The amount owing, just on the Fisheries Loan Board, for example - the minister can correct me if I am wrong - due to the collapse of the fishery in 1992, many, many individuals involved in prosecuting that industry were left with significant loans, really, and nowhere else to go. We have all heard of examples both inside and outside this Legislature of where people, through no fault of their own, through a decision they had nothing at all to do with, found themselves in receipt of NCARP and then on TAGS, and I recall during the Budget Estimates, under the minister's Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal, we talked generally about this subject.

In terms of the recovery of loans, you mentioned that some of them go back as far as the mid-1980s, I believe the minister said, or early 1980s. Has government taken a look at what is really recoverable and what is not? In other words, are there loans outstanding to individuals involved in the fishery, for example, or loans outstanding to government from individuals who applied to the Fisheries Loan Board, who were involved with the fishery in good times, when Total Allowable Catches provided the impetus where providing a loan for boats, motors, whatever the case may be, where there seemed to be a future.

Has government looked at what is totally owed from that board itself? What they believe after ten years has gone by, since that time? Really, what is recoverable in government's view and what is not? Is it government's view that we continue to try to recover everything and anything, or is there some sort of, I guess, view that we recover what we can for what we cannot? Is government going to take a decision to write that off - I guess, for lack of a better term - or to say: Look, these loans are non-recoverable. It does not look like we are going to get them so it is just as well if we wrote them off? I wonder if the minister could expand on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I say to the Member for Kilbride, all of these loans that are outstanding are really monies owing to the people of the Province. No minister has the ability to write off a loan. Certainly, we have some ability to look at the interest and outstanding interest payments. We have done that on numerous occasions. I do it quite frequently when, in fact, people are just not able to pay back their money and they have very little income. Obviously, we do it on a case by case basis, and I think that is important.

With all of these outstanding fisheries loans and other loans, in some cases we have personal guarantees. Obviously, you have an obligation on behalf of the people of the Province to collect that. In other cases you do not. I will say to all members and to the people listening, these are all done on a case by case basis based on your income, your ability to pay, and that is how that decision is made. We have written off loans over the years. I know, since I have been in this portfolio, I have written off a lot of outstanding loans because people are just not able to pay for various situations and circumstances; but, they have to meet the test. The test is that, first of all, all measures have been taken to try to repay the money, there are no personal guarantees, and if there is an ability to pay then you have, as a Minister of the Crown, the ability and you have the responsibility to collect because the money belongs to all of us as residents of the Province. It is all done on a case by case basis.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Certainly, I do not want to leave the impression or even to suggest that if there was money outstanding to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and any individual, no matter where or what industry they are involved with, if they borrowed money and they have the ability to pay in sum or in whole, then that obligation is obviously with the individual. The obligation rests with the Minister of the Crown, in particular, where there is an ability to collect that we must, because obviously that goes to general revenue to run other services of government.

The minister has indicated that we look at that on a case by case basis. I just have one more question in terms of a case by case basis, and I do not know if there is a criteria or not. I know that in my own experience as a member for the District of Kilbride, over the past ten years there have been many people who have sought my assistance and help dealing with, for example, school tax where people said: Look, I was not in the position for the last several years to pay school tax. Government, itself, the interest is continuing to accumulate on what I owe.

It is really interesting, Mr. Chair, in some cases, because people did not have the ability to pay, for example, the principal at the time and did not have the ability to pay for some time, again, through no fault of their own, the interest clock keeps ticking. So, the interest keeps accumulating. Interest on $100 this month is whatever it is and then next month it is on the interest upon the interest upon the principal. But, I must say, officials within the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, particularly in the Department of Finance, have been extremely - and I say this to the extent that I can - accommodating to individuals who have met that test which the minister has talked about in terms of the ability to pay, and, in some cases, have made arrangements whereby: Look, we can look at what you can do, how much you can do on the principal, and government has the ability to write off - not necessarily write off but to forgive and, I think this is what the minister talked about earlier in terms of writing off loans, forgiving the interest portion.

The final question I have with respect to the Fisheries Loan Board: Does the minister have any estimates, or have staff provided the minister with any sort of general overview of what they now believe is recoverable and what is not?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I would say again to the Member for Kilbride, there is actually a formula in place that looks at a person's income as it relates to interest remission. That is how the officials are able to make their decisions and discern what is an appropriate measure; because one of the things we did in trying to give officials more autonomy is, instead of every single individual case coming before the minister, giving them a clearly outlined plan for remission, and that is what they have been following. I think it has worked quite well, as you have pointed out.

In terms of the question on our plan, I can provide you with just an overview. Again, it is an aggregate overview of the Department of Development and Rural Renewal as it relates to its forecast in collecting the outstanding loans, particularly around Fisheries Loan Board, ENL and the Farm Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the birch loan? What about that one?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I do not know where the birch loan falls in here.

The forecast is over the next number of years. For example, this year we are hoping, according to the officials, that they will collect $960,000. In 2004-2005, the estimate is that $850,000 will be collected. In 2005-2006, $650,000 will be collected; and in 2006-2007, an aggregate number of $500,000. Again, you can see it is declining; but it should decline, because as the principal declines so should the increase.

As I said, I have just asked my officials to give the exact breakdown and the aggregate of each of the three components that I have outlined with respect to ENL, the Farm and Fisheries Loan Boards.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Further on, under the Consolidated Fund Services, under 1.2.01, it deals with the Recoveries on Loans, Advances and Investments.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What subhead is that under?

MR. E. BYRNE: Subhead 1.2.01., under Investment Recoveries, Capital. The headline is: Recoveries on Loans, Advances and Investments. The explanation provided in Budget Estimates, "Appropriates provide for principal recovery from various loans, advances and investments."

Last year in the Budget, the figure that was put into the Budget Estimates was $13,962,900. The revised estimate was only $1,412,900. I am looking, if the minister could provide the information on what was actually projected and what actually occurred. There is a significant discrepancy. Obviously it must be for some reason or it would not be there. That is the first question.

The second question is: You have estimated that this year the appropriation will be $13, 205,200. The first question being: You budgeted a significant amount last year, it was not that much, it was dramatically different, what was the reason for that? The second question is: You budgeted $13,205,200 this year. What confidence do you have that will be the amount? The appropriation has provided that at the end of the year that will actually be the amount, or close to what you have estimated.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

As I read in my Budget Speech this year again is what we planned last year. We did not go to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to have them borrow the $10 million. That is certainly the single biggest allocation, and that is why you are seeing the difference; because this is a capital component, as you can see. That is the single biggest one.

It also includes some principal payments as it relates to the St. John's Regional Sewer System. That is a carry-over. This is the principal part and the part you just asked previous to was the interest part. That is the other part. That is what is giving us the difference here. Okay?

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate the minister's answer. It certainly clarifies, I think, the capital outlay of cash. I appreciate the answer and it is well understood.

On Rental Purchase, subsection 1.3.01. of the Budget Estimates, still dealing with the Consolidated Fund Services and Servicing of the Public Debt, Various Facilities is the heading, Capital. "Appropriations provide for payments into sinking funds established for the purchase of various leased facilities at the expiration of the respective lease terms."

It is not a lot of money. Not that $100,000 is not a lot of money, but in terms of, as it relates to almost a $4 billion Budget. I am wondering what lease facilities you are referring to here. When I look at the subhead here, it seems that government is involved in many lease facilities, and why this is kind of taken out from that and put directly into just this subhead here, into Consolidated Fund Services. It kind of sticks out in terms of why - I mean, government is obviously involved in leasing facilities, more than $100,000 a year. The Citizens' Representative and the Youth and Child Advocate would be that, at least. So in terms of, I guess, just a question, a further explanation, because the explanation is not readily available in the Budget Estimates, as I see it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Again, this is the sinking fund payments for three individual facilities, and I think members opposite would know that we have put in place a sinking fund that allows us the option of buying the three facilities. That would be St. Lawrence, Port Saunders and Burgeo. These are three separate sinking fund initiatives that allows government the option in 2023 to buy these facilities at 60 per cent of the cost. If you multiply the sinking funds times the number of years, it will come up to approximately, I think, $15.9 million which would be the estimated cost of 60 per cent of the facilities in year 2023 with the interest added on.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Minister, under the Consolidated Fund Services again, Loan Guarantees - Statutory, under subhead 1.4.01., it says: Guarantee Fees - Non-Statutory, "Appropriations provide for fees charged private companies and certain Crown Corporations which have debt guaranteed by the Province." Last year it was budgeted $14 million. You came in a little over budget, which is more money in the general revenue. I guess this is the section where we are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for example.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you talking about 1.4.01?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. It says Guarantee Fees - Non-Statutory.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay.

MR. E. BYRNE: The explanation there says, "Appropriations provide for fees charged private companies and certain Crown Corporations which have debt guaranteed by the Province."

I guess my question is this: What private companies are government charging fees for? It says certain Crown Corporations, which I would take to mean that not all Crown Corporations are in this category. What Crown Corporations are you referring to, in terms of the money that you are taking in from guaranteeing that debt?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

There are two sections there. One is the professional services piece and the other is the guaranteed fees non-statutory. This amount relates to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro specifically - the 1 per cent guarantee fee. The other is the other corporate guarantees that are mostly private loan guarantees that we have had in place for a number of years, such as Torngat Fisheries and Fogo Island Co-op for example.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

If I am to take from what the minister said, this is primarily dealing with the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation. Is that what the minister said? Did I understand her correctly? Sorry about that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is primarily Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and other guarantees associated with long standing loan guarantees that we have had in place for groups like - I gave two examples. I do not know if you are with me this time or not, but I will tell you again, it is Fogo Island Co-op, for example, and Torngat Fisheries.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

So I am assuming from that then it would be safe to assume, based upon what you collected from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro last year, which was $14,159,100, you are anticipating this year - not just from Hydro - that the amount you are budgeting this year is $15,058,000. What proportion of that comes from Hydro, that the minister knows? How much of that $15 million that you are getting, in terms of revenue for guaranteeing their debt - what portion of that is coming from Hydro? How much has Hydro's debt gone up compared to last year for you to increase your revenue, I guess is the question?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Of the amount, $15 million is from Hydro and $58,000 is from the other Crown corporations or the other corporate guarantees that we have in place. From last year - this is not the debt. This is related to the actual fees associated with their borrowings. Last year it was $14 million and this year it is $15 million.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do know - I appreciate the minister's question.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. HARRIS: The year before it was (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that is correct. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi pointed out, the year before that it was $20 million, and I appreciate that.

Issues Under Guarantee - again, this is the following section. Subsection 1.4.02, again dealing with the Consolidated Fund Services and the cost of servicing the public debt. Just to provide the explanation again because - one time when I first came into the Legislature I did not need glasses or bifocals and now I need both. That is ten years.

Issues Under Guarantee: Appropriations provide for payments and revenues relative to honouring loan guarantees extended by the Province to certain private companies. Last year you had budgeted $500,000. The revised figure is that there was no appropriation; there was no money that came in. This year you are budgeting $100,000. Is this dealing with a specific private company? If it is, and if the minister is in the position to talk about who it is and if you cannot for obvious reasons or for privacy and confidentiality reasons - there are those situations obviously that government and Cabinet have to deal with, and only Cabinet and government can deal with. The question is: What company or companies is it that you are referring to here?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the member, this is really almost a contingency kind of allocation because when the government undertakes a loan guarantee it has be in the position to honour it if that loan is called, and it is good news. In fact, last year we budgeted $500,000 and we paid out zero, and that is because none of the loans were called. This year we have revised it downward again because we are not anticipating any of the loans would be called, and you asked specifically. They are mostly around the Fisheries Loan Board. Again, I can give that to you privately rather than publicly if there is an issue around that. There are some other private companies that have had long-term loan guarantees that we have tabled when asked in the House.

Again, we are not anticipating that any of them will have their loans called this year but we have to put something in, based on the fiscal advice we receive. We have to have some contingency in place on the chance those loans are called.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate the minister's answer. I certainly do not want to engage in a debate in the House about which companies and what. Obviously, that is their own private affairs and if appropriations are as the minister as answered, I am satisfied with that answer.

Again, this would be under the same Consolidated Fund Services, Servicing the Public Debt, dealing with Debt Management Expenses - Statutory - Discounts and Commissions, subhead 15.01. Last year, under Professional Services, the explanation provided in the budget documents say: Appropriations provide for underwriting commissions and management fees on new capital market borrowings by the Province. Discounts and premiums on such borrowings are also reflected under this activity.

The bulk of this deals with Professional Services. Again, this is more for a confirmation, I guess, for my own interest than anything else, that these are the fees associated with brokers in the marketplace, I would assume, that when we go to the marketplace and trying to convert from foreign debt more into issuing other bonds, et cetera, or this primarily deals with brokerage fees is the question I am asking?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Actually, all provinces across the country pay the same brokerage fee. If you want to, I guess, have an appreciation of why the number has gone from $3.6 billion to $4.2 billion, it is because this year we anticipate we may borrow as much as $600 million, for a combination of debt servicing mostly. Based on the fact that there are specific fees - for example, if it is a long-term maturity there is a .7 per cent fee. If your agent is out looking for a twenty-five-year bond in the capital markets, if you are looking for a ten-year bond it is .5 per cent and if you are looking at a ten-year bond is it .4 per cent. There is a set range of percentages based on the length of time and the maturity of the bond issue. If you are assuming you are going to borrow $600 million, which is the maximum amount, and if you are assuming you are going to go into the capital markets and look for long-term borrowings at twenty-five years then you know that the fees you must pay is .7 per cent. If you multiply the .7 per cent by $600 million you will get the $4.2 billion. That is how we came up with that number.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The minister confirmed, I guess, what I thought was the case, and I appreciate the answer. I know there is a prescribed formula across the board depending on where you are borrowing, how much you are borrowing, et cetera, so I appreciate the answer.

I would like to get back, if I could, to the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat under Executive Council, and deal with my good friend opposite in the House, the Government House Leader.

Subsection 2.4.01., in the office dealing with Communications, Consultation, Internet Operations and Graphic Support, you have allocated this year $520,000 with the Salaries. The explanation under the subhead says, "Appropriations provide for the promotion of public awareness of Provincial Government programs, policies and services and for the administration and coordination of Government's electronic communications services."

Is it possible that you could provide more detail, Minister, in terms of exactly what the salaries, what that subhead - while it seems self-explanatory, I think some more detail may be required to provide more explanation, particularly from this point of view.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Under Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of the Executive Council, subhead 2.4.01., Communications, Consultation, Internet Operations and Graphic Support. It is on page 18.

MR. LUSH: That is done under (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

MR. LUSH: That is not under (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 2.4.01. is under Executive Council.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry, Executive Council. I apologize for that.

Is this for all programs of government? "Appropriations provide for the promotion of public awareness of Provincial Government programs, policies and services and for the administration and coordination of Government's electronic communications services." Is this just the amount budgeted, as it states there, for the entire government, for every department in government?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The Transportation and Communications subsection, is that what you are referring to?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay.

Well, I can answer. It is for the Executive Council of government and, no, it does not cover all of government. It is a department. There is some sharing. For example, some of the communications people work at different times in the various departments. For example, my communications person in Finance works part-time up there, assists during the Budget and sort of has a finance expertise and I think is doing a fabulous job. If she is listening, I will give her a plug tonight. She does that kind of work, plus she does work on behalf of overall policies of government. So there are specific roles and there is some sharing, but it is not shared with all departments, it depends on the issue. I suspect if there is somebody up there that is well versed in the fisheries right now they are probably working very hard on that initiative with respect to our resolution and those kinds of initiatives.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would like to ask a question dealing with the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm dying to get (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not really. It is not that I am so inclined or, as the minister said, dying to get back to the minister's department.

Just before we closed for the supper break I had a few questions and I never got to deal with all of them with respect to the budget in the minister's office. This is the opportunity obviously. I know my colleague from Bonavista North, just a couple of weeks ago, took the time and had numerous questions dealing with his minister, his critic for Intergovernmental Affairs, and asked numerous questions in the House in this capacity in the Estimates dealing with it. Following from some of the questions that he had raised and the answers provided by the minister, raised some other questions that I have. I know we do not have very long left in this section of the Budget Debate. Just a couple - how many minutes?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five minutes.

MR. E. BYRNE: About five minutes left. Well that should only provide one quick question and one quick answer, I guess, if the minister is true to forum.

Minister, under Executive Support, 2.3.02., Appropriations provide for executive and administrative support for intergovernmental discussions and relations. I wonder if we would take the opportunity, in a general way, to deal with - for example, does this mean appropriations provide for executive and administrative support for intergovernmental discussions and relations with other departments, other departments of other governments? If you could take just a little bit of time to explain in a little more detail, I think, than what is provided in the Budget? This is not suggesting that you have not provided information in the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, 2.4.02., if I am not mistaken.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is me again.

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister's Office - it must be under Executive Council. Sorry, it is the Minister of Finance again. I apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hang in there, I will get to you. I am coming.

Mr. Chair, 2.3.02., I apologize. Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, page 17 of the Budget documents, Executive Support, 2.3.02. The description is: Appropriations provide for executive and administrative support for intergovernmental discussions and relations. Does this say it relates to other provinces? Is that what we are talking about here? There is a total amount of $746,300.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Did you say 2.3.02. because that is Intergovernmental Affairs?

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that is what I said.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, you were talking about 2.4.02. then you went back to 2.3.02. Which one is it?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, 2.3.02.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is Intergovernmental Affairs. You started off talking about -

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough. Tom, it is your question.

I am sorry, Mr. Chair, I should not refer to another member by his first name. It is the minister's question that I am asking under Executive Support. I apologize. I had some written here.

It says: Appropriations provide for executive and administrative support for intergovernmental discussions and relations. There is $746,300 allocated or estimated that you will spend in this subhead this year. The question is this: Could you provide more detail on that part of your department? Are we strictly talking about - in this subhead - relations from your department to your counterparts in other provinces and with the federal government?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

This particular subhead refers to the executive itself, the people who work in the office. Not the political staff but the executive staff. It pays for all of the work that they do, plus the work that they do for Intergovernmental Affairs in their relationship with the federal government, in their relationship with other provinces, and in their preparation of documents for premier's conferences and for the Eastern and New England Governors and the Eastern Premiers and for the general overall body that plans for - I think it is called the Canadian Secretariat that organizes meetings for the Premier.

This allocation of funds is where the support staff get their money to do all of this work for these various conferences that I alluded to. Also, for Francophone affairs, the military, all of the things that come under the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is where this particular money would be taken from the support staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

In every subhead of the Budget, no matter what department you look at, there are sections within each ministers' department that deal with Professional Services and Purchased Services. With respect to Professional Services, minister, Professional Services may be anything. They may be needed from time to time, and I understand that is why we provide appropriations within the Budget for that.

What sort of Professional Services has your department, in particular, been required to use this year, whether they be legal or otherwise, financial or otherwise? What types of services in the last year has your department, Professional Services - or you in your capacity as the minister of the department, the head of the department - required? What types of services have you required? For what specific purposes?

The supplementary question to that issue is this: When those services are required from time to time, for whatever reason, legitimate bonafide reasons, I assume, how does your department determine who gets those services? Is there a tender or are people chosen from a list of, say, we need a specific type of legal service, for example, and there are only a certain number of firms that offer this specific expertise? Do you have it narrowed down like that? Those lists exist, and so they should, but once you determine that you need a particular expertise, how do you go about determining who gets it and who gets the opportunity of those who have the expertise? How do those who have that expertise get the opportunity to make representations, in this instance, to your department to provide that to you, and through you and your department, to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, most of the professional services required by the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs this year were related to preparation of reports, preparation of -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to advise hon. members that time has expired for the debate.

By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: Most of them were preparation of reports. For example, I alluded to an earlier one of preparing documents for the Premier's Council. They were doing a study on Atlantic Canada as to what kinds of policies we should initiate. Then we would just hire people who had those kinds of skills from a - I think they would advertise. I am pretty sure, on the last one that I am aware of, they advertised and interviewed through the Public Service Commission, I believe. Then there are others that are just part-time, where they take people from a list of people they know have particular skills. That was with the McMillan Report.

Then another report was a report done for the Department of Energy which was having to do with gas. Again, a gas study, natural gas. Again, they selected people, as far as I know, experts from a list because they would only be part-time and work involved in a couple of months, three months, and they would be done from a list. But where they got into anything contractual, they would do the normal procedure that government requires every department to be engaged in.

Mr. Chair, basically, most of it is in the preparation of reports for the various councils that I spoke about. It just takes people with general skills - and we have a lot of these around in the public service, people who worked with government, laid off, and they would ask them to come back for a couple of months.

CLERK (Noel): The Consolidated Fund Services, subheads 1.1.01 to and including 2.1.05.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.1.05 carried.

On motion, Consolidated Fund Services, total heads, carried.

CLERK: Executive Council, subheads 1.1.01 to and including 3.1.09.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.1.09 carried.

On motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.

CLERK: The Legislature, subheads 1.1.01 to and including 6.1.01.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 6.1.01 carried.

On motion, Legislature, total heads, carried.

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

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

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee has considered the matters to it referred and have approved without amendment the estimates of expenditure for Consolidated Fund Services, the Executive Council and the Legislature, and has asked leave to sit again.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the adjourned debate on the Budget. I believe the Member for St. John's East had introduced a rather interesting amendment, and he will now carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. I believe the hon. Member for St. John's East adjourned the debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased once again to rise and conclude some remarks that were commenced yesterday evening. At that time, the debate was adjourned to allow some legislation to be debated. At the time, members may recall that we were debating a non-confidence motion that was presented by this side of the House with respect to Budget 2003.

Mr. Speaker, during that debate, I raised issues obviously as they related to my own critic area, in the area of education, and as they related specifically to some issues in my own District of St. John's East.

I remember referring to, for example, issues of concern that were raised by the Learning Disabilities Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, issues raised by the Federation of School Councils and a variety of school boards in the Province, when they raised serious issues with respect to the teachers' formula and how teachers are allocated to boards, and the process and the formula that is used in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we referred to the whole issue of class size. It is a common issue. I know it has been debated in this Legislature. In fact, we talked as well about the importance of the role of school councils in this Province and, in the past number of years, how their role has increased and how their role has become much more important in the delivery of educational services in our Province. As was mentioned earlier, school councils, of course, are comprised of professional individuals, many parents, many community volunteers, who see education as an issue of importance in their community and want to play a role, and play a very helpful role, in the delivery of this particular service.

In my few moments that I have remaining, I would like to point out just a few other issues of concern. I know the Minister of Education, later on this evening, will be, in all likelihood, participating in this debate, and I would certainly hope that perhaps the minister will address some of the issues that have been raised either by myself or other members of the Opposition or indeed the public at large. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to his contribution later on this evening.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, there are many good things happening in education. We see great successes being made, and great accomplishments by our students and by our teachers throughout the Province. We see success academically. We see success in the performing arts, in music, in the visual arts, in athletics. In competitions, nationally and internationally, our students perform very well. There are, indeed, very positive aspects of our educational system and a great tribute must be presented to the students and teachers within the system who perform and carry out their duties on a day-to-day basis.

Having said that, there are always issues of concern and the public, whether they be the professionals, the school boards, whether they be members of school councils, whether they be the parents, whether they be those in political life, or indeed any citizen, there are issues of concern that are raised on a daily basis. I guess it is the role of government to listen to those concerns and to accept those concerns with a view to perhaps finding a remedy to many of the issues that are raised in our education system in the Province today.

One example, I guess, of issues that have been raised, is when the Avalon East School District, the district wherein my own District of St. John's East lies, in the round table discussion and the pre-Budget public consultations that were held prior to the handing down of the Budget by this government, they raised critical issues. Issues, for example, talking about district reorganization work; talking about the allocation of funds for a school board that, in fact, houses approximately one-third of all students in Newfoundland and Labrador. They raised issues of ongoing major building maintenance. The board, perhaps, did some projection work, and looked into the future and presented to government maybe some cost that this government, or indeed any government, may have to face, not only in the present but in the future, with respect to dealing with real problems of facilities, costs, and what it will mean to the people of this Province from a budgetary point of view in trying to remedy the concerns that are raised.

These issues, when people, when professionals such as these, present their ideas and present their concerns, it is obviously the role of government to listen, to accept what is being said, to work diligently with a view to finding solutions and finding ways to deal with these day-to-day concerns that are raised by a variety of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, those concerns certainly are not restricted to the Avalon East School Board. I have a series of correspondence here, and I am sure the minister has as well, where, in particular School District 5, many of the school councils - I will just name several of the schools: Millcrest Academy in Grand Falls-Windsor; the school council in Baie Verte; the Indian River High School in Springdale school council; the Grenfell Intermediate School Council of Grand Falls-Windsor; Woodland Primary of Grand Falls-Windsor, where these school councils have found it necessary to again present to government issues of concern with respect to - whether it be funding issues, allocation of resources issues, reorganization issues, the types of issues, of course, that any school board would be faced with, particularly as a consequence of school reform and school reorganization of just a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, there are individuals within the community who find it necessary to report publicly and to speak out. One such individual, Dr. Bill Fagan, for example, recently wrote an article where he stated that there was nothing in the Budget which supports communities supporting children's learning. Of course, he is an advocate of strong literacy skills for our young people in the Province, but again an example of a professional, of a individual, who took it upon himself to take time and to express his views publicly, directed obviously to the Ministry of Education with a view to, hopefully, the minister listening and finding some solutions with respect to the issues that have been addressed.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps one of the most commonly heard expressions of concern by those in the classroom day to day - and I know I referred to it briefly last night, and it has certainly been referred to frequently by school councils, by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, and by representatives of our school boards - is the issue of class size, and where it is often suggested that maybe government should look into the concept of putting a cap on the size of classrooms, in the primary, elementary and high school level, because obviously there are situations where there are classrooms today where teachers find it most difficult, and perhaps students find it most impossible, to effectively learn in classroom settings where class sizes are simply too large.

I would be interested in hearing what the minister has to say, because I do know in the past the minister welcomed the suggestion and, I think, offered to sit down with both the NLTA and the school council federation to listen to their concerns to see if solutions can be reached, and if the concept of putting a cap on class size is a concept that would be both affordable and workable in our education system in the Province.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, spoke at length with respect to a piece of correspondence that I think perhaps all members received from the Learning Resources Council. This was a piece of correspondence that was sent to members following, again, an editorial in The Telegram where Heather Godden, the President of the Learning Resources Council where she expressed real concern where teacher-librarians were being cut, particularly when the evidence and the statistics and the data show clearly that we ought to see an increase in the role of teacher-librarians, and very serious concerns being expressed by, again, a professional person representing a group of professional people who see the downsizing of the importance and the downsizing of the role of teacher-librarians within our school system.

Mr. Speaker, recently there have been several, I guess, public issues of concern on which again I would ask the minister to make some comment. Of course, I remember one in particular that was raised early on, in this session of the House, and it dealt with the school in the minister's own district. I am talking about the school on New World Island where the school, when some 65 per cent or 70 cent completed, it was found that it had a serious problem with mould. I remember the minister saying, when that issue was raised by the Opposition in the House of Assembly, that, if necessary, the next day there would be people on site to review the problem, to assess the problem and, in fairness to him, when he said to correct the problem, to remedy the problem.

I am interested in knowing, and I am sure the public of the Province and indeed the residents of New World Island and surrounding areas who would be directly affected by this particular school would be interested in knowing, what the status of this is. For example, have representatives of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, in conjunction with perhaps officials within the Department of Education, assessed the problems? How serious is this mould problem? How will it have to be remedied, and to what cost? Because I know the figure of $1 million was being bandied about. That may or may not be right. It may indeed be less than that. It could well be more than that, but it will be interesting to know the contractual relationship that government now has with whatever contractor. Is it the same contractor? Is there, in fact, a new contractor that will do the remediation work?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. minister, I am asking the question. It is a public issue. I am asking the question and I look forward to his response this evening, because it is an important issue. It is an important issue for several reasons. Two that come to my mind: It is directly important and relevant to the people who live, obviously, within the geographical area that is affected by that school, but it is also an important public issue, particularly when we are looking at a potential cost of maybe $1 million or in excess of $1 million. So I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments on that particular point.

Recently in debate, my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, spoke about the school in Parson's Pond and how that school - apparently against the wishes of the parents of that community - was being closed. I believe the students in that area would then have to be bused to Cow Head, if I am not mistaken. I know we saw this on a regular basis when our schools underwent the kind of serious and radical reform a number of years ago. It was quite common to see schools close in some of our smaller communities. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps less common today. When it does happen, nevertheless it presents very sensitive and important issues to those communities and the residents of those communities who are directly affected.

I would be interested in knowing the minister's views on what it means when certain schools in certain more remote communities are forced to close down, or indeed asked to close down, and, against the wishes of those parents and those students, we see a consequence of a school being closed and relatively young schoolchildren being bused many miles to another neighbouring community.

Mr. Speaker, one issue that - again, I know the minister often responds this way when issues are raised with respect to the autonomy and the ability and the power of school boards. School boards are duly elected, as we all know. They are institutions. They are duly elected. They are democratically and freely elected and they are independent institutions. We have seen examples recently in our own Province where there has been direct interference - I say, Mr. Speaker, direct interference - by elected officials, members, and I know in one instance of a Cabinet minister of this government who directly interfered with the role and with the ability of a school board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing what this minister has to say, and I look forward -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps shouting across the House. I am offering that opportunity to the minister to respond. I am interested in knowing, as the Minister of Education in this Province, how he perceives the role of elected officials, particularly those at the Cabinet level, at the ministerial level, when decisions are being made which directly impact upon constituents within a particular school board area. I am interested in knowing the minister's views as to how far, if at all, a Cabinet minister should deal with and directly interfere with those issues that directly impact upon the constituents in a particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I began be indicating that these are the kinds of issues that we deal with on a day-to-day basis within the realm of education of our Province. It is interesting to note that approximately thirty years ago - and the minister knows this, and most members and indeed all members of this Chamber would certainly know that we are dealing with an issue of serious decline in our pupil population in the Province. This figure always startles me, when approximately thirty years ago, around 1970 or 1971, the total pupil population in our Province was approximately 160,000 to 162,000. The total pupil population in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador was about 160,000 to 162,000 about thirty years ago. Mr. Speaker, thirty years ago, we did not have Grade 12. So, when we talk today about our total pupil population, we are talking about those students beginning with Kindergarten up to and including Grade 12. Again, Grade 12 did not even exist some thirty years ago.

Today in our schools, I believe our total pupil population is approximately 84,000 or 85,000. I read a statistic that I believe the minister himself released a little while ago with the projected school board population within the next number of years perhaps being as low as some 60,000. So, just imagine, in perhaps thirty-five or thirty-six years from 1970 to perhaps the year 2010, some forty years, our total pupil population in this Province will have been reduced from about 160,000 to 60,000. It is a startling statistic. Not only in and of itself is it startling, and does it really give us all a wake-up call as to what is happening in our own Province as a result of a number of factors - obviously, out-migration - but equally significant is the factor of a lower childbirth. But, Mr. Speaker, these factors create challenges. These factors create the kinds of issues that are being raised publicly on a day-to-day basis.

School boards are being confronted with the reality of having to offer programs and offer an educational system and deliver an educational system with a significant reduction of students in schools that have a much smaller population, in schools that are spread throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador in communities that in and of themselves are decreasing in population. At the same time, the demand on the delivery of education, as such, that all students should and, by all means, are entitled to an array of programming and an array of options that would be equal to any other student in the Province regardless of where he or she lives, it is those kinds of realities, Mr. Speaker, it is those kinds of challenges, that really face decision makers such as ourselves. It is a factor that we always have to keep in mind. Therefore, when suggestions are being made, whether they originate from school boards, school councils, parents, or a professional teachers' association, they have to be taken seriously and there has to be a willingness and a will to sit down with those individuals with a view to finding solutions. As difficult as those solutions may well be, we have to take it upon ourselves, and it is the role of any government, and it is the role of particularly any Ministry of Education, led by any Minister of Education, to seriously accept those concerns and issues and attempt to find solutions despite those challenges and despite those realities that we meet and deal with on a day-to-day basis.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, there have been positive, and I say very positive, accomplishments made. For example, the Avalon East Educational Foundation, I attended a meeting just several weeks ago. I attended a meeting several weeks ago where the Avalon East Board set up the Avalon East Educational Foundation which is trying to set up a series of scholarships for young people who want to become involved in the performing arts, in music, in theatre, and in visual arts.

I say to the minister, this is an example, a very real example, of very positive things that are happening within our Province today. All we have to do is attend the musicals and the great activities that are taking place in our schools, where our young people do so well. They are taught so well and they are led so well by their teachers and their instructors, and with pride they perform so well. It is a credit to the community in which we live, regardless of what part of Newfoundland and Labrador it might be, but it is a credit to each and every one of us, I guess, who, in some small way, may contribute, Mr. Speaker, to the great success of many of our young people.

Just the other day we witnessed outside, and it was referenced here in the House of Assembly, the Kids Eat Smart Foundation. This is a foundation, Mr. Speaker, that is a non-profit charitable organization that partners with government, and 4,000 volunteers help to deliver nutritious meals to 15,000 children in our Province. What a positive program. I know of three schools in my own district, Gonzaga, Vanier Elementary, and MacPherson, all participate in this program. Again, it is an example of a community working together and it is an example as to how young people are often the recipients of this sort of volunteerism and this sort of hard work by the community at large.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. There are many positives, but the issues of concern that have been raised, I feel it is important that the minister take time and have a few minutes to address some of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on that note and simply say I look forward to what the minister has to say in response to the issues which have been raised.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been here now pretty well for eight weeks and the member opposite, in eight minutes, just asked me more questions than he did in eight weeks on education. In fact, I think he rose, since we opened the House of Assembly back around March 12 or March 16, twice and addressed two issues. One was teacher allocation, and the other one was the other day when I guess he was trying to accuse me of looking after Liberal districts better than opposition districts when it came to the education funding. Like his colleague from The Straits, who was my critic last year when I was in Fisheries, he tried to besmirch my character but the facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, let me go back to about two months ago, when the Premier asked me to take on the role as Minister of Education. I was very pleased and honoured to do that, especially when being asked by the gentleman himself, the Premier of the Province, a man who was a teacher, who became the head of the NLTA for our Province, who became the Minister of Education and later became the Premier of our Province. It was indeed an honour for me to follow along and do the job that he asked me to do.

We brought down a Budget here about five or six weeks ago. I forget, because the hon. Member for Ferryland has been talking. He spoke for three weeks, I think, on the Budget afterwards, before any of us got a chance to even speak.

What I always find amazing is that even though this is an education budget and we did put a lot of money into education this year, we have not heard one positive comment from the members opposite. I suppose if you were listening in a vacuum out there and only listening to the Opposition side, you would swear that we did nothing only cut the education budget in this Province. I do hope I am given the opportunity, like my hon. critic, to speak for an hour on this because he asked me a lot of questions and I would like to get to some of the answers tonight. So I hope that he would afford me the same opportunity. He nods and I appreciate that, but I would imagine when my twenty minutes are up some of them opposite will not give me leave to continue.

Let us talk about the Budget, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we did not take any money out of education. In fact, we put somewhere between $30 million and $40 million in education that was not there last year. We are very, very pleased to be able to do that. As I have said on many occasions, since becoming the Minister of Education and while being a teacher myself, that the youth of this Province is our most valued resource and that is what we have to spend our most money on. I am pleased to be able to stand here and say that behind health, education in our Province gets the second highest amount of money. As I think the member said last night, somewhere in the area of $880 million in total from the K-12 to post-secondary.

Let me tell you a few of the items in the Budget that my colleagues opposite conveniently forget to talk about that we have put into education this year. We will talk about the money that was saved in education, how we put it back into the hands of school boards. All around the Province, anywhere where there is a school closed, we always put the savings from the operating budget for that particular school back into the hands of school boards. Money that they can do with as they please with regard to school construction, one-time repairs and such. This year we put $9.5 million back into the hands of school boards in regard to this fund. Nine point five million, Mr. Speaker, is not a sum to be laughed at, even though the members opposite conveniently forget to talk about that when they are on their rant about what is wrong with the system.

This year, as well, an item that did not get any attention from members opposite, did not get any mention in the media as far as I know, was a great initiative that we are undertaking, not only for the benefit of school children in our Province, but for the benefit of many, many rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is a contribution of $5 million over two years toward Broadband Internet so that people in our most remote communities will have the same access to the same computer speed as we have here in the urban areas. For many of the members opposite who live here in the urban area, they would not know really what that would mean because they have access to that speed and the Internet on a daily basis. We are contributing $5 million in the next two years. That is not the only $5 million because it is an initiative that we are going to share with the federal government and a company like Aliant, maybe in the next year or so. They are also going to contribute $5 million each. So it is a $15 million initiative that will have far-reaching effects for not only the students of the Province, but also the residents of the remote rural communities around the Province.

We talked about capital construction. My critic got up the other day and talked about money going into Liberal districts and not Tory districts, but I straightened him out on that and he knows the truth of the matter now. We made a commitment back with education reform in 1996-1997 - and I say 1996-1997 because we did it twice. The first time it did not take. We did it the second time. We made a commitment that any money that was saved in education due to educational reform and consolidation, that we would put back into our schools and back into the education system in our Province, and we did that. We reduced the number of school boards from twenty-seven to eleven and we closed a number of schools because, obviously, we did not need duplication and triplication in a lot of areas in our Province. As a result, we have been able to put $187 million into new school construction around this Province. That is the most that has been spent in that period of time since Confederation.

If you remember, Mr. Speaker, when J.R. Smallwood brought us into Confederation - he was a great educator. He put more emphasis on education than anyone before him and certainly would give a good push for anyone since him. He did a fair amount when it came to building schools around this Province, but all of that was for naught. When the Tories came in 1972, in term of school construction and education in the Province, that was placed on a low priority. So, in 1989 when we came to power we knew something had to be done and, in the last four or five years, we put $187 million back into school construction. I have had the great opportunity to visit four of these new schools in the past month, month-and-a-half. When the Opposition criticizes us for not contributing to Tory districts, I might have to say that the first three schools that I went to the official opening of, three of the four were in Tory districts. In two Tory districts, to be exact, on the Northern Peninsula; two in The Straits-White Bay and one is the St. Barbe District.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of money, when it comes to children's education in this Province, the only ones who can even think about discrimination along party lines would be the members opposite because the facts speak for themselves. We do not discriminate when it comes to the education of the youth of our Province, because we put $187 million there.

Another thing that my hon. critic never mentioned because, as I said, he only asked me two questions since I became the Minister of Education and he became my critic back two-and-a-half months ago. He never talked about the Warren report. People opposite forget about last fall when we had a strike that was occurring, for the most part, out in Central Newfoundland. I can see why my critic would not ask me a question on that because he would not know much about that, living and representing a St. John's seat.

There was a strike involving secretarial and janitorial staff in a number of school districts in the Province. This year we made a commitment that we were going to - first of all, we had the Warren report come back with some recommendations. This year we are going to take care of the problems associated with the janitorial and secretarial staff in those boards and we have put $2.5 million into that, and I am proud to be able to say that we have done that.

Community Access Program; another thing they have not mentioned. We just put another $1.8 million into that and for the information of the members opposite, that is where we went around the Province - I think it was 196 communities - and placed computers, not only in schools, but in public libraries, community halls, so that not only the children in these communities would have access to the Internet service but also residents of the town, whether they be young or old. The people in those rural communities certainly appreciate that, and I am very pleased to be able to say that we have put another $1.8 million into that fund this year.

Curriculum: This year we have put $6.2 million back into curriculum in the Province. Even though the members opposite sometimes criticize the Department of Education for lacking vision, and stuff like that, we have been very diligent in the Department of Education developing new curriculum. I notice that the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is nodding his head and shaking. I guess he has been out of the classroom too long to remember any of that stuff, Mr. Speaker. We are very pleased to be able to do that.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, we got high praise from the librarians and the libraries around the Province. We put another $1 million this year, for the fourth year in a row, into library books for the youth of our Province. I met with the libraries board here in St. John's. They are very pleased with the million dollars and they are very thankful for the contribution that we have given them in the last four years.

There is another item that they talk about day after day. They talk about the 160 teaching units that have been removed from the teaching population in the Province. What the Opposition fails - they talk about, and I have heard my critic, the Member for St. John's East, is it, or St. John's Centre? - St. John's East - talk about the archaic formula we have for allocating teachers in the Province, Mr. Speaker. I was always of the understanding that archaic meant old, the archaic formula that we use. Well, the formula was not developed until 1999 and I can tell my hon. critic right now that we have not been following the formula, because what he forgot to say is that, had we followed the formula, instead of removing 160 teachers this year we would have removed some 378.

We left 218 teachers in the system because we want to provide our children with the best possible education in this Province. Not only that, we would like to offer them the best possible education in the country. We left 218 teachers in the system at a cost of another $16 million, so if you add up what we put into education this year it is somewhere between $30 million and $40 million. What do we hear from the Opposition? Absolutely nothing, because they do not talk about positive things. They do not talk about anything, actually.

To get to some of the questions that my colleague, my critic for Education across the floor, asked me last night, he has talked time and time and time again about teacher allocations but I still do not know where the Opposition stands on teacher allocations in the Province. I have not heard one of them, and I challenge anyone listening or anyone in this House to show me anywhere in Hansard, to show me anywhere on a transcript from a radio program, show me anywhere in a written newspaper, anywhere, where they say what they would do when it comes to teacher allocations, because they have not mentioned it.

My hon. critic is cute, very cute, when he gets up and talks about -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is cuter than the former critic.

MR. REID: Yes, you have that right. He is cuter than the former critic, and I must say he is cuter than the Fisheries critic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, he is too cute by half, because not once has he nor his colleagues said what they would do with teacher allocation. They always get up and quote somebody. The critic got up and, as everyone knows, late last night after the cameras got up, he got up and he spoke for five minutes on education and fifteen on justice and on the legal aspects of the Province. That is where his heart is. I do not think his heart is in education, and I do not know why his leader put him there. The former critic wasn't doing a half bad job, and he was an educator himself. I know that my critic now was an educator a long, long time ago. I do not know where he taught or for how long he taught, but he always quotes somebody else. He never gives his stand on what he would do with teacher allocations, but if you read between the lines, I think if you read what is being said and what they say from time to time, you can figure out where they would go with teacher allocations, because he hasn't said that he would not lay off any teachers. But if you look at the report that came out of the speech that he gave over in Deer Lake, and if you look at The Western Star, I think I know, I think we know, what he would do with teacher allocations.

He hinted. I am quoting The Western Star now, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to rile him up and say I said this. I am quoting The Western Star here. Are the Tories taking a chance? goes the article. They are talking about my critic, the Member for St. John's East, and they are saying that he said he hinted at possible tax cuts, saying that the government has the responsibility to take in as little tax base revenue as possible. Ottenheimer said that this can be achieved if the government trims the fat of bureaucratic bodies.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, is this the teachers' association that he is talking about? Because what other bureaucratic bodies is he talking about? He is not saying that he will not lay any off, because he hasn't said that anywhere, but he did say there is lots of fat in the bureaucracy that could be trimmed. I am wondering if he is talking about teachers. He hasn't made that clear. He refuses to make that clear, because even his colleague behind him, the Member for Harbour Main, when asked a question about school boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I will get to that in a minute.

- out in Carbonear there a few weeks ago: Oh, yes, we know what we are going to do with school boards but I cannot tell you yet. I cannot tell you yet.

Not allowed, I suppose, because they did not phone and ask the public relations director for their leader whether or not he could make a comment on that. Well, I will talk about that in a few minutes. Anyway, I have a feeling I know what they would do with teacher allocations if they ever have the luck - ever, not in the foreseeable future - of ever forming a government.

Now, the hon. member also waxed eloquently last night from a number of press clippings that he had, and he mentioned one. He mentioned one that he had, and he waved it around a few times, about the individual from Mount Pearl talking about class sizes. I have the article here, Mr. Speaker. It says: Class sizes should be reduced. He got on talking about: Yes, boy, this fellow is right. I think, Mr. Speaker, he also believes in everything that was in this article, but they hide this because when this individual was talking about rural schools he went on to say: As for rural schools, and I don't mean to cut them short, but if there are only ten or fifteen students what is wrong with what worked in the not too distant past, the one-room school along with the Internet which all children seem to love these days. Just listen to this. He said: Simplistic, but one-room schools worked for my grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather before him. Here is the article that he was up quoting from last night saying: This fellow in Mount Pearl has got it right.

I ask hon. members opposite: Is this what they are proposing for the rural schools in our Province, one-room schools hooked up to the Internet? Mr. Speaker, that is their vision for the future. Well, I will tell you one thing, it is not my vision for the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and it is not the vision of the people on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I say to the hon. Member for St. John's East, shame on you and shame on your colleagues for supporting you in it. Shame! Shame! It is absolutely shameful!

The other thing, Mr. Speaker: He talked about school boards and he talked about school councils.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I have some protection from the members opposite? I listened attentively here for eight weeks now without saying a word, and now all of the sudden, because I am up having my few words, they can't stand the truth. All they want to preach is doom and gloom and they cannot bear to hear of something positive coming from this side of the House.

Let me tell you about school councils and school boards, Mr. Speaker. We brought in, under the Education Act of 1997, the provision for elected school boards and elected school councils. The reason we did that, Mr. Speaker, is that we wanted to empower the people in the neighborhoods, in the communities, near the schools, in the districts, with some control over their education system. Prior to that, the decisions were made here in Confederation Building, for the most part, by the Minister of Education. We wanted to give the people, who are closely related to those schools, more empowerment. Mr. Speaker, we believe that, that is the reason we have elected school boards.

The Member for St. John's East got up and criticized me about my colleague from Carbonear tonight, about interfering in school board decisions. What the member didn't know is that the member sitting right tight behind him over there, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, was out to that meeting the week before my colleague from Carbonear and had told the people out there that the board had made the wrong decision. He went a bit further than that. He wrote the school board members and he phoned them.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, on a point of order.

MR. HEDDERSON: I would be remiss if I didn't stand and correct the minister immediately. When he got up and said that I wrote school board members, that is absolutely false and I would ask him if he would, kindly, withdraw that comment or produce the letter.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I might retract. All right, I will retract the written part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if he didn't write them, we were informed by the school board that he contacted them. Now, whether that was in writing or on the telephone, it doesn't matter to me. When the school board members said they were contacted by the Member for Harbour Main, whether it was in writing or over the telephone, it was with the same objective in mind and that is to interfere with the decision of that school board.

I say to the Member for St. John's East, before he gets up here casting aspersions he should talk to his own colleagues. I say, shame on the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. Shame on him!

Now, we talk about elected school boards. This group of individuals here in the Liberal government, we stand for elected school boards. The individuals opposite when they get up, they talk about elected school boards like they are on side with them. Well, Mr. Speaker, I happened to hear last week, from a very reliable source, that their new president, Mr. Lundrigan, is out there saying that their policy is to get rid of elected schools as soon as they become elected themselves. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because they don't believe in democracy. They want to have the power put back to the Minister of Education over in the other building in his chair.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

It has never been the policy of the party to get rid of elected school boards at all. We have never said it and never would say it. What the minister just said is pretty interesting in terms of trying to spread fear and uncertainty and doubt. From what he has been told from a very reliable source, from somewhere, at some point, at some time, now that is about as reliable, Mr. Speaker, as me standing up saying, now I was told that the minister said this about that, without even hearing it from the minister's lips. I wouldn't do it, and I would ask the minister not to do it because what he is saying is not true, in the first instance, and secondly, the implication of his comments simply spreads fear, uncertainty and doubt where none exists.

I ask the minister, when he is talking about being positive, and that we are not, be positive. Talk about the highlights of your Budget, take the opportunity to take the high road, but don't put words in peoples' mouths that you haven't heard yourself. That is what they call innuendo and spreading propaganda, Mr. Speaker, and he should be made to withdraw it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing it, because it is true. The man said it. Mr. Lundrigan said it. I have no intention of withdrawing it.

Mr. Speaker, they are a bit too coy. They talk about what the elected school board says but then they want to abolish them.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Member for Twillingate that he is a minister of the Crown. He is standing up right now espousing something to us that doesn't exist.

Let me ask him this: Who is your source and who said it? Was it said to you? Because if it wasn't said to you, all it is, is innuendo and tripe. I ask the minister, once again, either name the source - either the person you are talking about said it to you or all you are doing is spreading innuendo. Mr. Speaker, I suspect strongly that all it is, is innuendo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here and I haven't been interrupting those fellows with points of order. I let my critic speak last night and again tonight, never said a word to him, took copious notes. Now that I am trying to respond to what he has been saying over there, the member opposite wants to rise on points of order. Do you know why? Because he wants to take up my time, because he doesn't like to hear what I am saying.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Just to be clear: If I eat up thirty seconds or ten minutes or thirteen minutes on the member, I am not trying to take up his time. He can have whatever time my points of order have taken from him.

What I am standing up and saying to the minister is: If he is going to make statements in the House back it up with some solid information. He cannot espouse a policy to this party, one which we do not have, one which we will never have, and one which we never had, and then stand up and say: The person said it without actually laying down where his proof is. The reason why he will not, Mr. Speaker, because none exists, because it is not a fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have hit a nerve over there, but let's go on to some of the other topics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: We hit a nerve, because his own leader stood in the House here one day and said: I drop brown paper envelopes all the time. I do not have to divulge my sources. He said it himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: What is alright for his leader, I say, Mr. Speaker, is certainly alright for me.

Let's talk about something else. The hon. Member for St. John's East got up last night and talked about children with disabilities. A very serious issue in this Province and one I would like to address. He gave the impression that this government and this Minister of Education had no regard for children with disabilities and that we were not doing anything to help them. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is shameful, because what we do for children with special needs in this Province is the envy of every province in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The envy of every province in the country, and I wish my critic - who came from the critic for Justice, I think, was he, two months ago? - would do some research before he got up and talked about these things. He can come over to my office or he can call my staff anytime of the day, day or night, to get the information that he should have before he gets up there casting these aspersions about people in the Province.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, for children with special needs in this Province, we have 600 special education teachers. That is not all, Mr. Speaker, we have 350 special categorical teachers who almost work one on one with these children with special needs. That is 600 and 350. We have 650 student assistants who also look out to these students each day in the classroom. On top of that, we have forty or fifty child psychologists and many, many others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: And so we should, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason why we are putting the money into it. To listen to the members opposite getting out there preaching the doom and gloom day after day, you would swear that we are not doing a thing for anybody in this Province, but they do not want the truth to be heard because they know they could never match what we are doing as a government; never match.

Let's talk about the student-teacher ratio because I do not think member's opposite understand what the student-teacher ratio means. They think that if there is a classroom in the Province with more than 13.4 students in it, then I am telling a lie because the student-teacher ratio in this Province is 13.4 to 1. That means we have one teacher for every 13.4 students in the Province. Now, if a principal or a director of a school board decides that he is going to put twenty students in one class and two in another or six in another, that is not the fault of this government or this minister, Mr. Speaker. That is the way that the principal and the school board want to deploy teachers. We have the best student-teacher ratio in the country, bar none. I have said it time and time again. They keep coming back with their tripe but nobody would pick up the phone to see if what we are saying is true. We know it is true but, let me tell you, he talks about the number of students in classes in St. John's, and so-and-so got a class with thirty and so-and-so got a class with thirty-five. He never talks about so-and-so with a class of five or so-and-so with a class of six.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland up last night getting on with the same stuff. I talked to a teacher in one of his schools up in Mobile the other night. She said they did not have a class over twenty-five in the whole school. Now, that is in the same Avalon East School Board. So, you know, they get their signals crossed all the time. They get their signals crossed all the time. Like I said, we have the best student-teacher ratio in the country. How these teachers are deployed is entirely up to the school board and the principal of the school.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at some of the courses that are being offered in St. John's, we have schools here in St. John's who are not only offering French and French Immersion - French Immersion, something that we cannot offer in Coaker Academy on New World Island; cannot offer in J.M. Olds in Twillingate; cannot offer in Change Islands, the A.R. Scammel school. Not only do they have French and French Immersion, but they also teach Russian, Spanish and German.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The member opposite talks about the simplistic formula and he jumps up tonight with the simplistic idea. Let's put a cap on the size of a class - great idea! Let's say we are going to cap it at twenty-five. So that means if we have twenty-six we need two teachers instead of one. What prevents a school board director or a principal from saying: We are still going to have five down here in French Immersion, or we are going to have five over here in German, but we have a class of English down the hallway with twenty-six, we need another teacher. What do you do then? So if you are going to talk maximum class size, don't you also have to talk about a minimum class size? If you are not talking a minimum class size, all a principal has to do in the school is to make sure that one of his classes has more than twenty-five, therefore he gets another teaching unit so that he can create another class down the hallway with another class of five in it.

All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we are dedicated on this side to providing the best possible education for the kids of this Province and we are doing a good job. Believe me, we are doing a good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: If you look at the testing that has been done in recent years, we can prove that we have done a good job. If you look at the PISA international exams that have been done recently - I think the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has not been out of the classroom too long to know what test I am talking about. If he has looked at the most recent results from these tests, you will see that the children in Newfoundland and Labrador schools are doing better in reading, mathematics and science than countries like the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and on and on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: So the students in this Province are doing better on those tests than our neighbours south of the border. They do not talk about that. They do not want to hear it because that means we are doing the good job.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to get out and around the Province in the last few weeks and talk to a number of the teachers. I visited fifteen or twenty schools in the last few weeks. I have talked to a number of students. I have talked to a number of teachers. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of them all. One thing that I am finding about the students today, that I did not experience when I went to school in Carbonear and that I did not experience at university, I will tell you what it is - and my hon. colleague from Gander and my colleague, the Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary Education, had the opportunity to go to Memorial a few weeks ago to take part in a few workshops with a bunch of students there. What really impressed me was not only the intelligence of these individuals and their ability to articulate their views and articulate their ideas, but one thing that really impressed me, that I lacked growing up, that a lot of us lacked growing up, was the confidence and the belief in themselves. It made me feel good and it tells me one thing, that our education system is working. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we on this side of the House will continue to make it work for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

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 am pleased to get up and support this amendment, to look at the question as to whether or not this Budget is an adequate Budget and whether it serves the needs of the people of this Province. Certainly, it is not a question of the amount of dollars as much as the management of those dollars and setting priorities, following a plan, and treating all fairly by providing at least an acceptable level of service in health, in education, in safe roads, clean air and water, adequate housing, by providing every man, woman and child in this Province with a quality standard of living and by providing adequate stewardship for the natural resources of this Province. After fourteen years of a Liberal Government, this Budget, Mr. Speaker, reflects this government's failure to use the fiscal resources of this Province to the best advantage.

When we look at, I guess, the amount of the deficit - I am told it is something like $666 million - since I came in some four years ago the promise that I listened to year after year of balanced budgets has given way to an acceptance of a ballooning deficit. I would like, Mr. Speaker, just to go down through some of the areas to talk about this government's failure to adequately budget resources to take care of even the basic services.

I just listened to the Minister of Education talk about what a wonderful job this government is doing in education. I guess, self praise is better than no praise, or that is what I have been told anyway. It certainly was just line after line of what a wonderful job we are doing, aren't we great. I have to serve notice to the Minister of Education that all things are not well in education.

I would just start with the cut of 160 teachers. I have already addressed this when I spoke on the Budget. To cut 160 teachers out of this system is certainly - and we have had some feedback from some of the various boards, the various schools, the parents - downgrading the ability of the school boards in this Province to deliver adequate programming.

The minister talks about the allocation formula. I, in Estimates, brought to the attention of the minister the fact that the allocation formula, as it was introduced a couple of years ago, certainly put at a disadvantage the larger schools in our Province, in particular the large rural schools and the larger urban schools. There is a need for this allocation formula to be revisited, and revisited in the sense that when it was introduced three years ago it certainly took away teaching units from these larger schools. It needs to be looked at so that once again we do not have those large class sizes in our larger schools.

The minister brought up Facing the Challenge, which is a very comprehensive report that was done as a result of the work stoppage by the support staff in a number of boards last year. The challenge, of course, was to bring about change to make sure that there was adequate support services, namely secretarial and janitorial, that would ensure that the schools could be run in a most efficient way. The minister very conveniently said: Oh, yes, we are taking care of that.

The facing of the challenge, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, is costed at $9.2 million. The Premier had indicated that yes, once the report was done, it would be put into the schools. Again, as you just heard from the minister, $2 million is allocated for that particular report. At that rate, it is going to take five years for that report to be fully implemented into the schools. Again, the challenges are not going to be met and it is going to be five years before all the challenges are met and indeed addressed.

Again, the minister conveniently avoided talking about compulsory school fees. Of course, this has been a topic that has come up time and time again as parents and students are expected to bear the cost of curriculum related resources. They are being asked to pay in the tune of hundreds of dollars towards the cost of making sure that the curriculum resources are in place. Again, the minister conveniently ignored talking about these compulsory school fees.

The text system throughout - and we know there is a loaner system in place up to Grade 8, but no mention is made of extending that beyond Grade 8, once again to cut down on the cost of the K-12 education, especially in Grades 9-12.

As well, there have been a number of petitions. My colleague from Conception Bay South and myself have brought petitions forward from a class at Queen Elizabeth High, to ask the minister to consider reinstating a provincial cultural exchange program that was evident back in the 1980s, and to promote cultural exchanges, but again no mention is made of that.

Again, the minister was only too glad to get up and really talk about one side of it, but it has to be balanced, Mr. Speaker, and it has to be balanced in the sense that the education system in Newfoundland, the K-12 system, certainly is struggling. The school boards are struggling with the resources that they have, to stretch them as much as possible, to the extent that they are really and honestly having to go out and generate revenue. You know that, when we talk about school boards, they don't have the opportunity to go out and generate revenue much like some other boards might have. The only way that they can do it is through school fees in the schools and some other initiatives. For example, Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear too much about the international students, because there are school boards currently getting very active in attempting to entice international students to come into the K-12 system, again to generate revenue to help the school boards to ensure that the level of education in that particular board is being addressed.

It is all right for the minister to get up and talk about the bright spots, but for him to get up and talk about this as an education project is an insult, Mr. Speaker. The challenges that are out there are so great that they are not nearly being looked at to ensure that every student in this Province, regardless of where they live, regardless of their circumstances, can have access to affordable - I guess, affordable it would be, because even with school fees the K-12 system is getting to a point where not all can take part in it. It has to be accessible. Again, it is interesting to see the minister get up and talk about the aspects of what has gone on, but the challenges are not being met.

One other challenge that I would like to mention to the minister, and it talks about what is going on with regard to the teachers' association as they are going out and looking at what is going on in the classrooms out there in talking about the teacher workload. For example, Mr. Speaker, recently the government has taken responsibility: Oh, we have introduced the KinderStart program, what a wonderful program it is: (a) it has been funded by the federal government, (b) the input resource-wise from the provincial government is actually nil, and (c) it is putting added responsibility and added workload on some primary teachers. Again, this government is negligent in not making sure that this program is successful by putting the resources in to make sure it happens.

With regard to post-secondary - again, we are looking at this as an education Budget. This government, as yet, has not caught up to the tremendous budget cuts that they imposed upon post-secondary through the 1990s. They are not even close to it and they are not even close to it because I look at the tuition, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, just to finish up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five seconds.

MR. HEDDERSON: Twenty-five seconds.

Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the post-secondary, the government has not addressed the increase of over 350 per cent of the tuition through the 1990s. They have not addressed the decline in the number of grants in the 1990s. They have not addressed the ancillary fees that have seen increases of up to 500 per cent since 1993, and they have yet to address the tremendous accumulation of student debt back in the 1990s of Generation X, that I say became Generation D, generation debt. Until that happens, I can honestly say that I do not consider this government as addressing the needs of education in this Province, and that this Budget is far from being the education budget that they have touted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had better copy down my time so I will know what time I started.

I am delighted tonight, Mr. Speaker, to respond to my critic, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, who feels - I do not know why he feels this way, but he feels - that this is not an education budget. I do not understand that, for a professional who spent his working career in the classroom, in the school, prior to entering provincial politics. I know it has been in the K-12 system, but he cannot make that leap to look and see the changes that have happened in post-secondary education since this government has been in power. He cannot see that, Mr. Speaker, and I find that unusual: that he is the critic for post-secondary education and he cannot see all the good things that this government is bringing forward and implementing so our young people today will have a bright future, and they will have such a bright future that we want them to build their futures in our Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is even over there now, Mr. Speaker, pulling out a magnifying glass and a pair of glasses that he is borrowing from his senior friend, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and no, he still cannot see the efforts that we have put forward as a government.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that it was only last week that I had the pleasure of releasing this report and this says: Beyond High School. I think it is an important document. I hope that tonight the young people of our Province are actually looking at this House of Assembly session because I have good news for young people who might be out there tonight watching this session. We decided that we would track young people who had graduated in 2001, and the surprising thing about it was that we were able to contact 90 per cent of those individuals who graduated in 2001. So, I would say that we have an accurate account of what young people told us after they graduated in 2001. We found out that 71 per cent of those people were already into post-secondary education, and those figures are up by 6 per cent from 1995. That tells me a lot, as Minister of Post-Secondary Education. That tells me that our young people in the Province realize that a post-secondary education is vital - vital to a future.

You only have to look at the classified ads in both our local and provincial newspapers. We have seen a great number of those classified ads in recent years, and the majority of those are looking for young people with some form of post-secondary education. I think what it will tell us also is that we are seeing more of our young people attending Memorial University, we are seeing more of our young people attending the College of the North Atlantic, and we are seeing more of our young people wanting to stay in our Province and build their futures.

We, as a government, want to make it easier for young people to stay in our Province and build their futures. We listen to young people. We have been listening, and we are acting on the suggested responses and opinions that young people are expressing to us all over the Province. We want to make it easier for young people to get a good education in this Province, get employment in this Province, whether they acquire it or they actually take the risk and make their own employment.

I always say to young people who are graduating: Don't be disturbed if you do not get that ideal first-time job. We all know it is easier to get a job when you have a job. Sometimes you have to take a risk, Mr. Speaker, and actually create your own job.

It has been said that 95 per cent of the jobs created in this Province are by private business; businesses under ten employees. I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development will confirm that. We all know it is a great pleasure, being an MHA for a district and actually going back to your district and being able to be part of a ribbon cutting. Being part of a ribbon cutting for a new business says a lot. It says that people are willing to invest in their own business, their own communities and their own Province.

Government can only set an atmosphere for business, Mr. Speaker, but it is the people themselves who actually create the business and the business opportunities, and they are the ones who will actually build our communities and our Province.

Young people have a bright future in this Province, and I am sure our Minister of Human Resources and Employment has already said that on many occasions. The stats tell the story, and you cannot defy the facts and the stats. We all know that the Newfoundland Statistics Agency and Stats Canada are recording some of the best figures ever for employment in our Province. We had the greatest year on record last year, and I think we will exceed that this year. All other forecasters and economists across the country are telling us that we are doing a good job financially. Now, we need to believe that our own selves. The Opposition always dispute that. You know, you cannot dispute a bond rating agency when they give you an A credit rating. You cannot dispute that. The bond rating agencies know our financial bottom lines. They know that and they are prepared to keep our rating the way it is. So, all of us and all of you across the House of Assembly tonight will have to agree, a lot of things are being done right. If there were not, we would have many financial experts telling us the difference.

I want to tell young people out there tonight, a lot is being done for them so they will be able to build their futures in this Province. We know the greatest part of an education today is actually paying for it, and many young people do not have savings, or their parents do not have savings, set aside for their futures. For many of them, particularly those from rural Newfoundland, they are going to have a greater expense in paying for their education.

We have listened to young people from rural Newfoundland and we realize that we must do something, and we have. Last year we totally revamped our student loan package so that young people now looking at attending Memorial University will be able to get an undergraduate degree and be able to actually write off the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan if they meet the criteria. The criteria is very flexible. If they complete their undergraduate degree in eight semesters, they have a possibility of writing off the total student loan, the Newfoundland and Labrador portion. This is the brochure that they should pick up and learn more about it, because it is very important.

Now, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne said, what can you do for Generation X or G, or whatever alphabet letter he used. Well, I say to the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, we are looking after those graduates that happened in the 1990s and had no way to access this program.

This year in our Budget 2003, which was an education budget, and I am very proud of it as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, people who graduated in the early 1990s have an opportunity at this very moment for a tax credit paid on the principle of the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan. That is one of the things we are doing. We also provide interest relief, and we all know how important it is to get that first-time job. We want our young people to get a job here in our Province so they can stay here. Many of them, in the past, have said: We need to go to Alberta, we need to go to British Columbia, we need to go to the U.S., we need to go around the world so we can pay off our student loans. We heard that and we are listening. We have made changes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS THISTLE: I just need about one minute.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. members of this House who afforded me a minute, by leave time.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is important. It is important for our young people. Our young people are our future and I want them to build their lives here.

I think what we are doing, we are listening to the users, our young people. We have made accommodation and we will do more accommodations as we are financially able to do so; but we have made financial commitments this year even though we have a budget deficit because we understand that our young people are so important and we need to provide them with the ability to have a great education here that is affordable and accessible. They are the future of our Province and we are doing the right thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This year's budget was termed an education budget. I want to focus on that just for a few moments. If you look back thirty years ago, the population statistics were that there were probably about 16,000 or 17,000 children born every year. What that meant, Mr. Speaker, is that five years later you had 16,000 or 17,000 children enrolling in kindergarten. It meant that you had 16,000 or 17,000 children every year enrolling in schools. You had, one would assume, 16,000 or 17,000 children in Grade I, Grade II, and so on and so on.

The number of children being born in the Province has declined significantly and that poses challenges obviously for school boards. Today's population rates, I believe, are about 5,000 children born versus thirty years ago, 16,000 children born. You can only imagine the challenges that school boards are now facing. The population is continuing to decline. It is estimated that in the next seven or eight years it is going to be down to about 3,500 children born in this Province. You are looking at, in a thirty-five year span, a difference of about 16,000 to 17,000 children down to about 3,500 children. School allocation grants are based on population. What does that mean? That means, Mr. Speaker, every year that goes by that the population is declining, one would assume that the school board allocation grants would also decline. The challenges that school boards are facing, and will continue to face, will continue to grow as our population declines. Just because you take children out of school, or there are less children going into school, doesn't mean that the costs decline. If you have twenty-five children in a class this year and in seven years time you will probably only have sixteen or seventeen children in that same class, you can't put a fraction of a teacher in that classroom.

We have already seen the closure of a number of schools in the Province. We have already seen the consolidation of schools in this Province. That has been done. If government continues to base school allocation grants on population, and the population continues to decline, we are faced with the reality that we have already consolidated schools, we have reduced the number of schools, we have reduced the number of school boards, it is going to become very difficult to reduce the number of schools from what is in the Province now in seven or eight or ten years time. You are going to be facing the fact - and the Education Minister agrees, because it is a significant challenge and it is going to continue to be a significant challenge.

What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is school allocation grants are going to continue to decline, we are going to be forced, really, to have the same number of schools, because you can't decrease the number of schools, in rural Newfoundland especially, much lower than what they are today, unless you are going to force school children to continue to be bused even further and further than they already are.

I guess the point I am getting at here is: In the future, are we going to be able to continue to provide school allocation grants based on population? What you are seeing today is that a lot of schools are not able to provide the services without a tremendous amount of fundraising, without ticket drives, and whatever, to raise funds. The children are bringing tickets and fundraising schemes back to the parents.

What we saw a couple of years ago, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, was the Education Minister state on one of the media stations that the school fees were voluntary, they were not mandatory. That created a benefit for some parents who just simply could not afford to pay those fees, but it was a double-edged sword. While some parents, some families simply could not afford to pay those fees - and I will elaborate a little more on that in a minute. There was a public statement made that they were voluntary fees, parents did not have to pay them, students did not have to pay them. What ended up happening is that a lot of people decided they were not going to pay them. What happened? Now schools are in a crunch because they are given an operation grant. They are expected to collect school fees from children who are now told that it is a voluntary fee, not mandatory. Most people are not going to pay a voluntary fee. You now have schools that are faced with having to raise money. You have schools that are forced to raise money.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, fees were being charged for lockers and locks, paper, computer paper and other supplies. So, schools are now being forced to raise money because the students are no longer paying the school fees - on the notes that are being sent home at the beginning of the year. They are no longer paying those fees.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening, as a result of the grant allocation process that is diminishing as the population declines, as a result that these schools fees are voluntary as opposed to mandatory, you are having schools that are facing financial challenges. I serve as a community representative in one of the schools in my district and I know the challenges that they face, and I know the reason they face some of those challenges. I know the type of fundraising that school has to do, and that school is not unique in the challenges they face. It is similar throughout the city, similar throughout the Province. So we have to question whether or not government is going to continue, based on a declining population, to be able to provide grants in the same format that they do today. Now, I believe the school boards were going back a year and basing next year's grant on the population that a school board had last year. They have now gone back two years because of the decline in population.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing that school busing in this Province has increased. Granted, there are children who are being bused today who were not bused ten or twelve or fifteen years ago. On the other hand, in some communities in this Province you are seeing children who are bused twice and three times the distance today than they were ten years ago. So we are not going to be able to continue to force children to take school bus routes that are getting longer and longer as a result of having to close the school.

There are schools in this Province - I believe there is one in Norman's Cove, if I recall correctly - where there are maybe eight or ten students from K to 12, and there are two teachers for that school. Next year or the year after, or the year after that, if that school population drops to six or five, do you justify cutting the teacher allocation in half and putting one teacher in that school? It is going to be difficult to do. That is going to be difficult to do when you are looking at one teacher serving six or seven students from K to 12. That is going to be difficult to do.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at other areas of the Budget. If you look at other things that are happening within this Province today. Last week in debate I touched briefly on one of the problems, one of areas, that I receive an enormous number of calls. One of the highest percentages of calls I receive in my office relate to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

I said during debate last week, it does not reflect on the staff at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I believe what is happening is happening throughout the Province. I know for certain it is happening within my district where you have Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units that are gone - the repair of those units has gone downhill in the past number of years. We have to ask why? Is it because government is not providing enough funding to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? Is it because Newfoundland and Labrador Housing revenues have dropped as a result of the sale of their units in Churchill Square and Elizabeth Towers? Or is it because Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has gotten out of land sales and land development?

As we know, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing were largely responsible for the development of Cowan Heights, which, obviously, must have been very profitable to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and obviously must have created and generated a great deal of revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They were also responsible for the development of Donovan's Industrial Park, as an example, which obviously generated a great deal of revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We have to ask the question: Why is it now that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Units are in a worse state of repair today compared to ten years ago? Why is it that residents of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing have to continuously call and practically beg for repairs? Some of those repairs, they make calls over several months and sometimes several years before those repairs are carried out.

We have units now in the Province that have shingles on the roof that are twenty, twenty-five, some of them even older than that, twenty-six years old, the shingles. They are repairing them instead of replacing them. We have units in the Province where the windows are literally falling out of the units and not being repaired.

This type of thing, Mr. Speaker, was not happening at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing ten and twelve years ago. The units at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing were good places to live. Many of them still are, but many of them are in deplorable shape. When you have the capital city in this Province, the City of St. John's, just several months ago saying that if those units were owned by a private landlord the city would go in and impose work orders or shut those units down, you know they are in bad shape.

What is the problem? What is the problem, Mr. Speaker? It is obviously bad management by government, whether it is a result of declining revenues by Housing, which is obviously a case because of their sale of their most profitable areas, which was a bad decision by government, or is it because of declining grants to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? Either way, that is an issue that has to be addressed by this House of Assembly, by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to make a couple of concluding remarks to say that I have put in petition after petition to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs asking for handicap accessible units in my area, one and two-bedroom units in my area and indeed throughout the City of St. John's. There is a drastic shortage of handicap accessible units in this city. That, in this day and age, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable. That is unacceptable. I do not know when that issue is going to be addressed, but as it stands today it is unacceptable.

On that I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise tonight to speak on the Budget, a Budget that was brought down by this government, a Budget that outlines the future for the people in our Province. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I could tonight speak on the riding of Torngat Mountains and certainly outline some of the major developments that this government is bringing to the Coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in September, 2003, in the little community of Postville, we are going to open a new all-grade school, the fourth new school built on the North Coast of Labrador since 1996. I think that shows a dedication of this government to our young people, of providing them with an education system where they, in time, will go on to post-secondary education and take their place in different jobs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to work with a government that believes in giving freedom to people, and nowhere is this more clear than what this government is doing to the Aboriginal people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are very close to finalizing the reserve in Natuashish, and we are very close to doing the same thing in the community of Sheshatshiu where the Innu people were forced to move to different locations many years ago, against their will and without any consultation.

Mr. Speaker, this government is on the verge of finalizing a lands claim deal with the Labrador Inuit Association, and for some of the people who were moved from Northern Labrador many years ago, they will now have a self-government. They will run their own affairs and they will lay out a framework for their children and generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, on the North Coast of Labrador we look at a riding that was devastated when the fishery closed in 1992, and why it affected the people on the North Coast so much is because these people did not avail of any TAGS programs or buybacks, but we have rebuilt the fishery on the North Coast so today we probably have one of the most stable fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador. The crab plant in Makkovik is working very well. Our scallop plant in Nain, where we also do turbot, is providing good employment to the people who work there.

Mr. Speaker, this government did a deal on Voisey's Bay. Although we listen to the Opposition speak on the loopholes and the Mack trucks they could drive through, every day people are beginning to realize that government made a good deal.

Mr. Speaker, just a short time ago we brought in a special project order for the work that is going to be carried out on Voisey's Bay. For the first time in the history of this Province we brought in the adjacency clause, because we believe that the people on the North Coast of Labrador, and those closest to Voisey's Bay, should have preference and be given an opportunity to work there.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget talks about people, and that is what this government is about. Many times we hear the Opposition speak on different matters where they chastize the government, and I guess in some cases that is their job, but I am proud to work with a government that has presented a budget that we believe is going to benefit everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we believe with the development of Voisey's Bay, our Premier and our government, that we have set the stage for megaprojects down the road, that we are getting control over our resources and we are providing employment to our people. Mr. Speaker, we are Liberals on this side of the House and we believe that everyone should have an equal chance, regardless of where they live.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, this being the last sitting for the Spring that the House may close on Thursday, and when we come back in the fall of 2003 we will have a new Liberal government.

MR. E. BYRNE: You never said that when (inaudible). Say it again.

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I will say it again. When the election is called this fall - when the House reconvenes in the fall of 2003, there will be a Liberal government on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: Don't you worry, I could stand up here tonight and quote different versions of what every member on that side of the House said about Voisey's Bay, where it would not work; where you could drive a Mack truck through it; where your leader stood up and said: I have not seen the IBAs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, go ahead. This guy is not going to simmer down for nobody.

Where your leader said: I have not seen the IBAs so I cannot advise them on if it is a good deal or a bad deal. That is what your Leader said about it.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, as a good Liberal, and someone who believes in people - as I said, if the House does close on Thursday, when we come back there will be a new government, a new Liberal government, but before I go I want to pay tribute to some people who have helped me in my riding.

I want to say thank you to the MHA for Gander, who was the Minister of Tourism when I became a member in 1996. She was one of the first minister's who took the time to come into the small community of Makkovik for our Come Home Year. To her, I say, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, to the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, who was the Minister of Environment; when they brought in the recycling program they made stipulations that gave the children in the schools on the North Coast of Labrador an equal opportunity so that they could make some money to pay for their grads and other things that they could not do before. To him, I say, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: To the MHA for St. John's North, the Minister of Mines and Energy, who did the Voisey's Bay deal, who, time and time again, came back and asked me questions about the people on the North Coast of Labrador, and made sure that we would be included. To him, I say, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: To my good, tall, long friend from Labrador, Lake Melville, the first ever Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, who went to bat for me and the people in Labrador many times in Cabinet, I say, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: To my good friend, a friend of everyone on this side of the House and that side as well, the MHA for Burin-Placentia West, who, in many ways, acted like a true friend - I guess, in some cases, even as a mother to a lot of us who were away from home and at times went through some difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you this, I went to the North Coast of Labrador too many times to say goodbye to a loved one who felt that their lot in life was not worth living because of the employment in their area. The Member for Burin-Placentia West, more than once, called me and said: I am thinking about you and I wish you well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: These people, Mr. Speaker, are Liberals. They helped us on this side of the House, and today I want to say thank you to all of them for the job they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I said this Budget is about people helping everyone, regardless of where you live. I am proud to work with this government. I am proud to work with a leader who believes in everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of where you live.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the reason why we are going to come back on this side of the House, because our leader can bring himself down to every person, regardless of where they live. That is his style, that is his nature, and that is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want. Mr. Speaker, we will be back. We will be back on this side of the House, forming the next government, come next fall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to rise and have a few words to say on the amendment put forward by my colleague from St. John's East, and express a few concerns that I have about this Budget. I would like to say to the Minister of Education, his arm is stretched a long ways patting himself on the back for the things that he was saying pertaining to our school system.

I would like to say to the Minister of Education that I read the report by District # 5. I do not know if he has read it. If he did not, he should. Things are not all good in District # 5, in Central Newfoundland. This school board, Mr. Speaker, has done what the government expected to do in the restructuring of the school system, and now they find themselves in a deficit of $450,000. If that is a good job by the government then I guess the Minister of Education is going to have to keep patting himself on the back, because the people who live within District # 5 region are certainly not patting him on the back.

We are finding today that our students in District # 5 are finding it very difficult getting the proper education that they need, that they deserve. I have seen first-hand, Mr. Speaker, in some of the schools in my district, and within District # 5, crowded classrooms, and you could see that within the Grands Falls-Windsor area alone: over forty students in one classroom in one school, and other schools with over forty students in them. That creates a very, very uncomfortable learning condition for the students in those schools.

Not only that, you see some of the special needs students. The minister was bragging about what they were doing for special needs. Well, I would like him to come out to Central Newfoundland and visit the schools in District # 5 and talk to the parents of special needs students and ask them is he doing such a great job with the school system for special needs in District # 5, because I certainly cannot see it. I have seen special needs students in Brian Peckford Elementary in Triton being put away in small rooms with no windows and no fresh air and no supervision because there are not enough teachers. There are not enough special assistants in that school to make sure that they are taken care of properly.

If that is a good job, then I guess he will have to pat himself on the back again, but I know first-hand, talking to parents in Central Newfoundland after the Department of Education did a study, an assessment on special needs. They spent a lot of money doing the study, too. It came out with recommendations, and today I am still talking to some of those parents who are wondering when the department and this government are going to start acting on the recommendations that were made for the special needs.

It is not happening today, and I have a list of the parents' names in Grand Falls-Windsor. If the minister wants to talk to each parent individually, I do not mind giving it to him. I would be absolutely proud to represent the people in the Grand Falls-Windsor area, to represent them and their needs that they have to their special needs children.

I think it is ridiculous that this minister could get up on his feet and pat himself on the back on such a good job he is doing when in this Province today we have a lot of needs, a lot of great needs for our special needs students. I say to the minister, you should be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, this list of our amendments that my colleague from St. John's East has presented goes on to ask the government to do certain things with respect to our economy and to our social programs, and to other programs in the Province. I say to the government, one is to invest wisely in the Province's youth.

The Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary Education was on her feet proudly, proudly bragging about the great things that her department is doing for the youth of this Province. If their plans are working, then why is there such big demand of our youth on social services? Why are they, the big percentage, availing of social services today in this Province if they are doing such a great job of educating our young people, our young future citizens of this Province?

We have our trades in this Province with a failure rate of 36 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Even the ones who are successful in coming out of the programs, a good percentage of them are moving away. They are having to pack their bags and move away, because the government is not addressing the problems of post-secondary graduates. They are not addressing the problem with providing good jobs in rural Newfoundland and the atmosphere for businesses in rural Newfoundland to avail of our trained young people coming out of the colleges, then having to pack their bags and move on to the mainland. I think that is ridiculous because there are parts of the Province where you cannot find trades people, where all the basic trades, carpenters and electricians and plumbers and all these basic trades in the Province, are being left without people filling the positions because of the aging population of our trades people. The average age, I guess, of trades people in our Province today is forty-five. That tells me that soon we are going to have a serious problem with people filling the job positions in our trades in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of progress, if that is the kind of good job, that the minister is bragging about, then I think she is going to be the only one patting herself on the back too. The trades people, the companies, the businesses that need young trades people from the colleges, are certainly not going to be there patting them on the back for the great job they are doing, when they are not doing that great a job when it comes to our K-12 education system, when it comes to our post-secondary education system, when it comes to all the needs of our young people.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of programs in our Province today where our young people are being involved and educated and being advised and taught, and it doesn't cost this government one cent. I was thinking, as I was sitting there listening to the minister, with respect to what some of our groups, our associations, are doing, some of our different corps are doing, like the Sea Cadet Corp.

Just Saturday night I was in Triton. I was invited to the first annual ceremonial review of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corp of Triton, Dorset. What this does for our young people, it gives our young people experience in different aspects of living and gives them really good training in different aspects of safety, water safety and so on.

I have to congratulate our volunteers in rural Newfoundland who make things happen. They make these corps, whether it be Sea Cadet Corps, Army Cadet Corps, Air Cadet Corps - these volunteers that we have in rural Newfoundland, and I guess all over Newfoundland and Labrador, because there are corps on the Avalon and in cities everywhere, they do such a great job in taking our young people off the streets and putting them in situations and in training where they have this for the rest of their lives. It helps them to become trained, responsible and really good citizens.

I would like to congratulate all the volunteers who get involved in participating in any type of training for corps, whichever corp it may be. It is important that we do this, which doesn't cost this provincial government one cent. It is all done through the federal government, through the different departments in our federal government, with the money coming from the federal government. We should be proud of that, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the other things on this list we would like to see amended - this one here: To protect adequately the Province's resource wealth. Mr. Speaker, this Province has a very bright future if we avail of our resources, if we get the best result from our resources, the best financial amounts from our resources. We have to make sure that these resources, whether they are renewable or non-renewable, are harvested or mined or taken from this Province and make sure that we get the best bang for the buck. We cannot afford having our resources leave this Province without maximum benefits for our people in this Province. All too often we see our resources, our products going out of this Province not processed properly, not valued-added to the product.

I know with forestry alone, Mr. Speaker, it depends on a lot of factors where the forestry goes in this Province. The dollar value makes a big difference. The U.S. markets. When the markets are soft it has a great effect on our forestry resources. I say to the minister, we want to make sure that our forestry resources are managed in a sustainable way where they will be here in this Province for future generations, our children and their children, for years and years to come. The only way we are going to do that is to avail of that resource now and maximize the profits and maximize the value-added to the forest resources so that it does not go out in any type of raw state, but goes out in the maximum manufactured state that we can do. If we do not do that, then we are going to see another resource, as our fishery, being depleted, gone, not there for our future, and that is going to be sad for all future generations. Not only that resource, Mr. Speaker, we must look at our mineral resources in the Province. We have to make sure that every time there is an ounce of minerals go out of this Province that we are getting the maximum benefit from that resource.

Now in the Voisey's Bay deal, the Premier said that the resource would leave this Province but some time in the future that resource would come back to this Province. I am still trying to figure out if Inco has a supply of resource somewhere in the world that they can avail of, because if they did, then they would probably be taking that resource now rather than trying to take this resource out of Labrador that we have here now.

I ask the Premier: Does he think the people in this Province really believe that some day the value of every bit of nickel that is going to be taken out of this Province is going to come back to this Province to be fully processed here? I say to the Premier today, there are a lot of people here who do not believe that. There are a lot of people in this Province today who do not believe we have a good deal in Voisey's Bay. They are starting to be skeptical of the deal itself. A lot of people I talk to are wondering where all the jobs are. They are wondering when the time is going to come to get jobs in Voisey's Bay that was promised to them a year ago. In the Province itself, there are still hundreds and hundreds of people who thought there would be jobs available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of these people are still moving away. They are still packing their bags, moving to the mainland and thinking that they were hoodwinked, thinking that they were misled, that this government promised jobs but did not deliver them.

I talked to a gentleman the other day who left for Alberta, a member of the teamsters union. He was only third on the list for a job but still could not get a job in this Province and had to leave for Alberta. That is not a very happy camper in this Province. This fellow is very, very angry with the way he was misled by this government, hanging on here, hoping he would get a job and now there are no jobs available for him.

That is the type of thing we are running into when we look at government's responsibility and how they treat our resources in this Province. If people are going to avail of the resources of this Province than we have to make sure that we are going to get the best benefit from it; not somebody in Quebec, not somebody in Ontario, not somebody in anyone else's part of the world because truthfully, I do not care what they want. I care about what we are going to give. I care about what this government is going to give away.

This government should not enter into any deals to anybody in the world that we could do ourselves and maximize our benefits from it. I talked to a lot of people who believe that this Voisey's Bay deal is one of those giveaway deals again. Another giveaway deal again. People are asking: When is it all going to stop? When are we going to smarten up and when are we going to say to companies that come in here, big companies who try to avail of our resources, that: Listen, this resource is for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of the benefit is going to go to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need the profits from our resources to rebuild our roads, to have better health care facilities, better programs in our schools. We need all the revenue we can get from resources.

When we look at our offshore resources, what we are getting out of the oil in our offshore is unbelievable, that the net revenue to this Province is thirty-five cents a barrel when other countries and other provinces get anywhere from $4 to $7 to $8 a barrel in royalties from a barrel of oil; the oil that is in their jurisdiction. We get thirty-five cents. There is something wrong with that, I say to the Member for The Straits and White Bay. He knows what is going on with the resources because he sees it firsthand in the fishery. He sees it in our fishery. Our fishery has been depleted. What is going on with our resources in our ocean? A different species. Man is well experienced in that.

We have members on our side here who are experienced in different aspects of resources in our Province. The Member for Bonavista North, the Member for St. Barbe, members from all over the Province, rural members who see things happening in their districts, who watch our resources being raped and taken advantage of and our small companies in this Province being taken advantage of. Do we stand for this anymore? No. We have to come up with policies and good government, responsible, transparent, who is going to take care of our resources, who is going to make sure that the people, and our Member for St. Barbe, his district, the people in the District of The Straits & White Bay North, the people up there are going to maximize the benefits of jobs in their districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: Did you say my time is up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: Two minutes? Clue up?

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): You have three minutes left.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have three minutes left. I can say a lot in three minutes. Madam Speaker said I have three minutes left.

Anyway, I say to the members on that side, this amendment presented by my colleague from St. John's East makes a lot of sense. If we just look at that, and go down through these items, we can pick out enough in here to speak for days and days and days on what should happen in this Province. If I had the privilege, I would speak for days on it. I would stay up here for as long as the Speaker would give me.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I was in error. I was going to give you twenty rather than ten. It was supposed to be ten minutes, so you are over.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will give my colleagues the chance to speak.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: I am being generous tonight.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you.

Madam Chair, I had not planned to stand again in this Budget Debate but I just need to set the record straight on a few comments that had been made in the Budget Debate by members opposite, certainly by the Member for Bonavista Bay South. We are dealing with issues around the Environmental Assessment Act, land use planning, zoning, and things of that nature, and I just need to set the record straight on a few points.

The issue that we are talking about here is the issue - as the hon. Member for Conception Bay South has spoken on several times, and not always completely accurately, but he has spoken several times - on the situation of Incinerator Road on the Foxtrap Access Road, an area which has been designated by the Town of Conception Bay South, initially in its municipal plan, as an industrial commercial area. That was a designation afforded to that area prior to the area being absorbed in the greater St. John's area in 1992.

The fact of the matter is, the area being referred to as Incinerator Road on the Foxtrap Access has always been - at least in my knowledge, I can only speak from my knowledge. I lived in the area for a period of years back in the late 1970s, and at that time it certainly was a commercial industrial area - an area, which at that time, was the home of the waste disposal site for the Town of Conception Bay South in which there was a teepee incinerator on that area. So it is designated, through the municipal planning process, as a commercial industrial area. There is not a problem with that. That is the authority of municipalities to designate such areas for such purposes and it was designated by the Town of Conception Bay South and subsequently, taken on by the City of St. John's in 1992, and its status as an industrial site was confirmed.

Madam Chair, just to give an indication of the types of facilities that are located on Incinerator Road, as I referred to the former waste disposal site - in our days, perhaps, referred to as a dump - it was located on Incinerator Road in the 1960s. It has been there. It has now been decommissoned in the sense that the Town of Conception Bay South moved away from the area and is now dumping their domestic and industrial garbage, I believe, at Robin Hood Bay; but the site is still there. It is still standing. It has not been redeveloped. The old incinerator is still onsite and, Madam Chair, that particular site is on the edge of a stream, a stream which also winds its way down through the Town of Conception Bay South, down to the recreational area. But the point I make, it was established in the 1960s and it is not an incident that happened in the last week, last month or even last year.

Another type of facility located on the Incinerator Road is the Rothsay rendering plant which was established in 1977. Do the math. It has been there a long time. Madam Chair, it is there because the site was zoned, by the Town of Conception Bay South at that time, as an industrial-commercial area. Now, the rendering plant is a facility which is not a facility that you would, perhaps, have in the centre of your town. It is a type of facility that accepts all kinds of material from around the Province and is brought to the rendering plant for rendering and subsequent production of meal of different kinds. Yes, that plant has had a few problems over the years because the material that is brought there can and sometimes does produce an odor, not unlike the fish meal plants around many outport communities in Central Newfoundland.

Also, Madam Chair, in 1978 the present Department of Works, Services and Transportation established a depot in that particular area, and one of the main things they do at that site is store salt. Of course, salt, as you know, once it gets into any kind of water over time with rain coming down through it - you know, it is just a natural thing that rain will go into the salt pile and the rain will find its way through the soil and so on and so forth. Again, it is at an industrial site.

Madam Chair, there were a number of quarries established at the site in 1988, and subsequent to that. Also along the way, and subsequent to 1992, as I understand, the training centre was established out there. The university training centre for offshore training was established in 1991, the year before the area was incorporated into the City of St. John's.

Also, Madam Chair, there are a number of other commercial opportunities out there in dealing - the party site, otherwise known as Company 10643 Newfoundland Limited, otherwise known as Parties Industrial, which started in 1992.

Also, about twenty years ago the Town of Conception Bay South approved residential developments on a large scale on the Foxtrap Access Road. That would put you around 1983, about twenty years ago. At that time residential development - again, in accordance with the Municipal Planning Act, the Town of Conception Bay South approved the development of a residential subdivision - which, as my colleague across the floor has said: That as the crow flies, is located approximately three or four kilometres away from Incinerator Road.

That is the situation as we have it out there today. As Madam Chair might be aware, in recent times two other developments have applied to go out there. One of which was the use of biomedical waste. There was a significant concern raised by area residents, a concern which is subsequently piggybacked upon by the Member for Conception Bay South. Anyway, at end of the day the proponent decided to withdraw his application. Obviously, he was not wanted in the area. He did not want to inflict too much prosperity in terms of business opportunities upon the area so he withdrew his application.

Madam Chair, there is presently another application before the Department of Environment dealing with the relocation of a waste metal, a salvager, who is now operating within the very midst of Conception Bay South, a residential area. There is concern. There are obviously a number of individuals - and the council would like to see him move to another location. He has applied for a site on Incinerator Road, located in an old quarry site which has not been used for some years. However, the Member for Conception Bay South sees all manner of reasons why this should not be approved.

Madam Chair, I personally visited the Incinerator Road site. I have gone out there and viewed the site. I have walked through the so-called sewage which was on the ground - which is not sewage. It is the by-product of a sewage. We will not disagree with that. It is the watered sewage. The sludge is then placed into a building where it is composting. After that it gets distributed and moved offsite to another area. Even the water which is taken from the septic, Madam Chair, is placed in tanks which is then trucked to another location in the Province and disposed of through a septic field. So there is not even any water coming from that site.

The member opposite has indicated that there is a lot of oil being wasted on the site. Our officials are looking into that, but we do not know where that oil is coming from because there is no one on the site who is dealing in that product. I suspect what the gentleman opposite has seen is what I saw, and that is in the small marshy area there, yes, there is a sheen that looks like oil, as many of us have seen so many times when we travel the hinterlands of Newfoundland and seen the bogs. There is always a sheen on many of the bogs. It looks like oil but it is a natural by-product of the bog, not necessarily an oil. The member has asked that we go and investigate that. We will send someone out to take a look at it. I have no doubt, Madam Chair, that the results will come back as what I have indicated.

The rendering plant did have a problem with its effluent. There is no doubt about that, Madam Chair. The plant has now installed a water treatment facility. It has been installed. It is now in the process of being commissioned. Once that is done, we do not anticipate any problems with the water from that site. The water from the rendering plant is being adequately treated in the facility which has been constructed and which will shortly be commissioned. There is no water of any type coming out of the Party facility because the water is going into a storage tank and being transshipped off the site.

So, where is all of this contamination coming from? As a layperson, and that is all I am, Madam Chair, I suspect a lot of this -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MERCER: Just to clue up, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. FRENCH: No leave.

MR. MERCER: No? Very good. The Member for Conception Bay South has refused leave.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It gives me great delight to stand here tonight and listen to the litany of stuff about Incinerator Road, Madam Chair. The member kept referring to this as a commercial area and he went on to give a history of the area. He went on to say that Rothsay was there in 1977, that the depot has been there since 1978, and that the other environmental issues in that area have been there for years and years and years.

I say to the member opposite, it was not that long ago I heard him, and read it in the news, that he was down lecturing the federal officials in case there was ever an oil spill on the South Coast of our Province, and I agree with him. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Boats have sailed past there for years. Does that mean now we forget about it? Absolutely not. We heard that argument with the harbour in St. John's and what is the result of that today? We see a $90 million problem that, today, could be fixed in Conception Bay South on Incinerator Road for probably several million dollars but instead, the Department of Environment, and the minister in particular, runs from the issue.

I say to the minister, I have lived there my whole life - lived in Foxtrap my whole life. I went to school nearby this operation and I can tell the member that there is pollution in that area. This is not just me concocting up some story. I have e-mails, I have letters, I have petitions, I have residents phoning me. As a matter of fact, I spoke to a resident this morning who did me up and sent in to me, wondering what he should do with it, and I advised him he should send it to the Minister of Environment, like everybody else I had spoken to in the last number of weeks, Madam Chair. He had a picture book of probably twenty photographs of this so-called sheen, as he calls it.

I can tell you, Madam Chair, if you went to that site today and opened the door of your car, once you got over the smell of the manure or the sewage that he is talking about, you can certainly smell the oil in the area. Now, I don't know where the oil is coming from. I have absolutely no idea, but it is certainly upon the Department of Environment to go out, investigate where this is coming from and take the corrective action. The finger should be pointed at someone in that area to clean up that mess. It is an absolute disgrace, I say to the minister.

He talked about visiting Pardy's Waste Management. Well, I have also visited Pardy's Waste Management. I did it in the dead of winter and I have done it in the middle of the summer. You drive along Incinerator Road and you come to this wet spot running across the road. It doesn't matter the temperature, that water does not freeze. Now, I can't tell you what is in it but it never freezes. It comes right directly from the corner of Pardy's property. Now, whether somebody else is throwing it on Pardy's property and it is running out into the road, that is one issue. I have to question why he is such a big defender of a company in that area when he should be in, as the Minister of Environment, investigating the issues. What are the hidden objectives here? I don't understand it. Is there a hidden motive? Why can't he go in there and investigate, send in the inspectors?

The minister has already told me that, yes, at one point they did have a problem and, yes, at one point they did fire the sewage out into the wetlands. They let it go out into the wetlands. So help me God! They let it out into the wetlands, Madam Chair. Now, it is not cleaned up. They let it go out, it did occur, but it hasn't been cleaned up. The member says: Well, I have gone over and stood on the property and, yes, there was sewage there, but they got the water taken out of it. Well, Madam Chair, I say to members opposite that if it looks like sewage and it smells like sewage, then regardless if the water is in it or not I would say it is a good chance it is sewage. If it is running out on top of the ground then there are problems in that area.

They referred to a biomedical waste, they had planned to burn biomedical waste in that area. That is what they had planned to do. There were air emissions, there were fluids coming out of this. A citizens' group held a meeting of 400 residents of the area. The minister makes light of it: Oh well, the member opposite, he does not want any industrial development in his area. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would accept any industrial development, but not at the lives of people who live in the area, not because they have to breathe the stuff that is going to come out of that, not because their kids will be out playing in rivers that this stuff will be running through. Madam Chair, I do not want industry in my area if that is the result of it. I would prefer to protect our environment, protect our children, and protect the neighbors who are going to live around that area.

He gave a big history of the whole area, but one thing he left out: At one point, back in the - I worked there actually one summer on a summer work RAP, I would say in the early 1980s. He talked about the late 1970s when the Rothsay went there. Well, three or four years after that, there was a swimming hole actually on that little drain he talks about running out through. Well, I say, Madam Chair, I lived right on that river and there were times of the year when my neighbors would have wished it was a trickle because their basements were flooded out quite regularly. On that little drain he talks about, there was a swimming pool put there under make-work projects years ago. It was a beautiful facility; picnic tables on both side. I worked there as a lifeguard. There were probably seven or eight young people employed there on and off throughout the summer - canteens; families came there and barbequed. That was in the early 1980s. In 1977, Rothsay came there. Every year, there was always a question of whether that swimming hole was polluted or not. Some four or five years later, they had to shut the swimming pool down: Don't anybody else get in that water, it is polluted and contaminated. We cannot have a swimming pool here.

Why would the Department of Environment at that time, or the council of the day, shut down a swimming pool, the only swimming pool we had, I might add, in the whole town of 20,000? The Member for Topsail remembers it well, I am sure. I am sure the Member for Topsail would know what I am referring to. That was shut down: Don't anybody else swim in that. But the member opposite feels that the Incinerator Road is fine. What a disgrace, Madam Chair!

The other day, a friend of mine had a connection from Norway, who was here staying with him, who was at that world-class facility, I might add, in on Incinerator Road. When he drives in, the first thing he hits is the smell of the sewer that is not really sewer, but it smells like sewer, looks like sewer and it would probably feel like sewer on your boots or in your hands, but it is not sewer, Madam Chair. You drive past that and then you get to the mounds of garbage that are just dumped on the side of the road. Well, that is the best kind, there is nothing wrong with that, that is environmentally friendly, that is wonderful. Then you drive past another gate and you see PCB storage, a big sign up. Now, if that is being stored properly, that is okay in my opinion. There is a way for that stuff to be stored. That is an industrial area, so fine, if that is stored properly, and it has gotten there with all the appropriate permits, so be it. He drives further in the road, Madam Chair, gets out of his vehicle, goes into this building, runs into the building because of the smell in the area, to be told by the school in there: We cannot turn on the air conditioning here today. We cannot do it. We cannot turn on any air conditioning because the air pollution in the area is that bad.

The Minister of Environment makes light of this. He should know the difference. He was in that area in the 1970s, he lived there. I attended school with people he knows very well. Certainly, there were environmental conditions at that time. Now, that we are bringing it to light he wants us to forget about it. Well, I say, Madam Chair, the residents of CBS will not forget about it and I will not forget about it. That is what the people of St. John's did for years and years and years, let it flow out into the Harbour and now it is costing $90 million to fix it up. I say to the member opposite, there will be no companies in Foxtrap to turn that place into an environmental hazard on my watch. I will keep bringing it up in this House, I will keep reminding the minister, and I will also let him know that officials who visit that site once a week - and he knows it - the only thing I can get out of them, as well: It is not getting any worse. That is the most I can get out of them.

I say to the Minister of Environment, do the right thing, as I suggested the other night. They cut me off, they didn't give me leave. Do the right thing here, Madam Chair, go back, clean up Incinerator Road and make the place a better place to live.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: One more thing before I sit down. You know, he makes light of all this. He talks about, as the crow flies, it was three to four kilometres. It was actually two to three kilometres. Just short by that there are two schools with approximately 1,400 students. They are sitting there - he was in favour of the biomedical waste, the prevailing winds would blow the air over. The river runs behind the school, Madam Chair. He makes light of this. That is okay. It has been like it since the 1970s. What odds about it; it has been like it since the 1970s.

I say to the Minister of Environment, if he wants to prove himself to the residents of my area, then he certainly should go and at least clean it up, have it investigated, and punish the people who have done the damage in that area.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes this evening to speak on the motion put forward by the Member for St. John's East, the amendment to the Budget Debate, Madam Speaker.

I would like to talk this evening for a few minutes on why I support the amendment put forward by the Member for St. John's East, and why I cannot support the budgetary policy of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Madam Speaker, we need to look not much further than our resource sector. I spent quite a bit of time, as most people know, in the fishing industry, and I sat on the Resource Committee reviewing the Estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, and so on and so forth, over this spring session, last spring and the spring before. I have pointed out from time to time since I have been here how we, as a Province, failed - and I will say it again, failed - to have a plan in place for much of our resource-based industries.

In particular tonight, Madam Speaker, I would just like to speak briefly on the fishing industry. I will speak on other things, but I will speak briefly on the fisheries and aquaculture industry in our Province.

Madam Speaker, while we reviewed the Budget Estimates, and we can look through the Estimates book here at any time at all, anybody in the public can look at it, there is $9.33 million and change budgeted for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture in this Province. It was roughly the same figure last year and I suspect, I do not recall exactly, it was something similar to that the year before.

Madam Speaker, throughout all these years I have listened to people on that side of the House, I have listened to former members of this House, talk about how we are here today and we have a debate going on about the cod fishery, the ground fishery in this Province, and how many of the problems that we are confronted with in the industry today are as a result of the lack of planning over the last ten or twelve years.

Madam Speaker, I do not know why anybody is amazed at that. I do not know why anybody is amazed that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not have a plan for the industry, the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, when the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador, does not have a plan for this industry either.

Madam Speaker, I look at it and I see how we have spent $9.3 million over the past number of years on the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and we have not even so much as a plan that you can write on this piece of paper here to point out how we would like to see the industry developed in this Province, how we would like to see it go forward over the next five to ten years.

There is much debate throughout the fishing industry on a vessel replacement policy. Madam Speaker, the question is: What is the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to a vessel replacement policy? They do not have one. I will tell you why they do not have one. They do not have one because, if they had one, they would have to defend it in front of people who may be opposed to some of the aspects of it. That is why they do not have one. If they had one, if they had a fishing vessel replacement policy, that said people could replace their vessels up to sixty-five feet regardless of what their cubic number was, then they would have to defend that in front of people who might maintain that they should be able to go beyond the sixty-five foot barrier. Conversely, Madam Speaker, if they had a policy that said that vessel replacement should be allowed to go to eighty-five feet, they would have to defend that policy in front of people who maintain that it should not go beyond sixty-five feet.

It is imperative for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a policy, to have a position and to have a plan for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our industry has changed substantially, as everybody here knows, over the past ten years. I suspect that you do not need a crystal ball to figure out that the industry is going to change substantially over the next five to ten years, probably just as radically as it has changed in the past ten years.

Madam Speaker, why do we not, as a Province, sit down with the industry, sit down with the people who are involved with the catching of the fish and the processing of the fish and the marketing of the fish, and look at the industry that we have today, and look at where, in all likelihood, it will go in the next ten years, and what are the market requirements, and what are the vessel requirements, and what are the processing capacities that we need, and put a plan in place that is able to put our industry on the leading edge of the fishing industry in the world. I am sure that if we did that, we could avoid many of the mistakes that we saw in the past, many of the mistakes that are haunting many of our fishing communities today. Madam Speaker, that is one of the reasons why I have to say that I call into question the government's budgetary policy here today.

Madam Speaker, there are other sectors of our economy where you have to question government's direction and question their budgetary policy. We talk about the development of a tourism industry in many parts of our Province, and we all recognize that a tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has grown significantly over the past twenty, twenty-five years. Certainly it has grown dramatically, I would say, on the Northern Peninsula since the Viking Trail, Route 430, was upgraded in the late 1970s and pavement was put through.

We saw the development of the tourism industry in that area in large part because of the development of the infrastructure that people needed in order to get there, and the infrastructure that people needed in order to be able to enjoy their visit once they arrived, but what have we seen over the past number of years? Here we have the Northern Peninsula with Gros Morne at the base, with Pointe Riche and the Maritime Archaic Site at Port au Choix. At the end of the French shore at Pointe Riche we have the Basque Whaler Site, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Gros Morne, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Red Bay, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in L'Anse aux Meadows. You know, three, four, significant tourist attractions on the Northern Peninsula.

We have the legacy of Dr. Grenfell, a world recognized name, international recognition, certainly very well recognized in Britain and very well recognized in the Eastern Seaboard of the States, in the New England States, in New York, in Massachusetts, places like that where the International Grenfell Association has long been established, close on 100 years now. Madam Speaker, that main recognition and the attractions that we have in the form of our World Heritage Sites creates a tremendous market potential on the Northern Peninsula.

What is one of the major constraints that we are facing on the Northern Peninsula today to increase development of the tourism industry on the Northern Peninsula? It is transportation infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure in the form of roads, primarily, up and down the Northern Peninsula and into communities like Conche that formed a significant part of the French shore and our French culture in Newfoundland and Labrador, in places like Croque that, again, was a cornerstone of the French fishery in centuries gone by.

Madam Speaker, what do we have today? We have a main highway up and down the Northern Peninsula where much of the pavement is twenty-five years old plus. We have, in my estimation, roughly 100 kilometres of road on the Northern Peninsula that today has signs up on it advising: Please drive with caution - that type of sign up; rough road ahead for the next ten kilometres, twenty-five kilometres, or what have you. The deterioration of our roads network on the Northern Peninsula is certainly enough of a reason to call into question the budgetary policy of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, again I move into an area that I am not sure if the government members even agree on the appropriate way forward, and that is the movement of the Labrador ferry service from Lewisporte to Cartwright. While we all recognize that over the course of time, with the development of the Trans-Labrador Highway, with the development of suitable transportation infrastructure up and down the Northern Peninsula and into southern Labrador, we all realize that there would eventually be a movement of that service, in all likelihood, to some place other than where it has operated out of in the past.

Madam Speaker, it appears, if you listen to the people on the North Coast of Labrador, if you listen to the people who are responsible for providing goods to that coast, it appears that the decision to move the ferry service was done without due consideration to the impact that it would have on the people. It was done without due consideration to the impact that it would have on the roads.

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that roughly 1,000 tractor trailer loads of goods, materials, will have, in the past, been moved by the Sir Robert Bond from Lewisporte to the North Coast and to Goose Bay.

Madam Speaker, I do not know if anybody else recognizes the condition of the road on the Northern Peninsula. I am not sure if anybody recognizes how much damage1,000 tractor trailers, loaded with heavy loads, travelling over a gravel highway, is going to do. I would have to say that -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) Labrador West.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and I agree.

The Minister of Transportation says that we should ask the people in Labrador West, and he should ask the people in Labrador West, what will happen with 1,000 tractor trailers travelling over a dirt road. It is just not able to withstand the amount of traffic, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, when you look at this and you look at the bigger picture here, and you look at what government is doing in moving it, I, for one, in the future, if the transportation infrastructure was such that it could withstand the increased traffic, would say: Yes, it would have to be.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, by leave, just to have fifteen or twenty seconds to clue up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will clue up just by saying that these issues, the lack of a plan in our resource-based industries, the lack of a plan for infrastructure development, the deteriorating condition of our roads throughout the Province, certainly causes me to question the budgetary policy of this government.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words tonight on this motion put forward by the Member for St. John's East. I support his motion, of course.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Of course - that the House acknowledge and condemn the government's failure.... Now, I do not need to read the whole motion, Madam Speaker. Basically, what I am saying is I cannot support the Budget this year as put forth by this administration, for many, many reasons. I will get into some of them.

MR. BARRETT: Why?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Labour wants to know why. If he was a bit patient, he would understand and find out why in a few minutes. The first thing, Madam Speaker, is because of the mismanagement of this Province's taxpayers' dollars, billions of dollars every year.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get into transportation in a minute, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I appreciate the few dollars we got this year in my district; no doubt about that. It was long overdue and he knew it. I will get into the transportation issue in the Province in a little while. I don't have a lot of time, Madam Speaker, I think I only have about ten minutes or so.

The Auditor General each year, over the past number of years, has pointed out, quite clearly, that this administration has not been forthright, Madam Speaker, with respect to the deficit each year. Year after year after year it was pointed out. This year, the Minister of Finance has announced there are going to be three different deficits. The cash deficit, of course, is $286 million.

The reason I can't support this, last year and the year before and the year before that, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, ministers on that side of the House, Madam Speaker, said: We cannot run a deficit. We have to cut, we have to slash. When Clyde Wells was there, the former, former Premier, he cut 2,000 jobs out of the civil service, cut, slashed, burned. We have members on the other side of the House, in particular the Minister of Finance, trying to say that that is our policy. Yet, we have fourteen years of the Liberal Administration cutting, slashing, burning as they go, for lack of better words, I suppose. They are trying to say that that is going to be us. They have a history of doing it for fourteen years.

All of the sudden, this year, we can have a deficit of $286 million, a cash deficit, and $666 million in an accrual form to determine the real deficit, as they say. Madam Speaker, we haven't seen the books, we don't really know what is on the go over there. Six hundred and sixty-six million! Last year they couldn't have a deficit, and this year $666 million. Why? I have to ask the question: Why are they so inclined this year to run a large deficit? Well, I have an answer for that. I say to the Minister of Labour, we have an answer for that. I wonder is it because we have an election coming within weeks maybe? Certainly with months. So, are they going to try to spend, spend, spend their way to another election and try to get a victory? Well, Madam Speaker, it is not going to work this time. It is not going to work.

I want to talk about why I cannot support this budget, Madam Speaker, and why I support the non-confidence motion put forward by the Member for St. John's East. Well, let's look at some of the wastage that this Administration has had - and ministers on that side of the House are all part of it. We have a Premier who was in Cabinet for years and years and years - for ten or twelve years or maybe more - trying to wash his hands now, trying to be a Pontius Pilate, that this new Administration, our new Premier elected a couple of years ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not elected. I stand corrected, Madam Speaker, not elected. No, selected by a few Liberals at a convention. He says that he wants to have election reform. He wants to have elections, fixed term, every four years. Now, he is well into his fifth year. It does not apply now. It was only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Four years, yes. I agree with fixed terms, no doubt.

Every four years he is saying - but that is only after the next election. It does not apply now. Basically, the policy is: Do as I say, not as I do. Madam Speaker, do as I say, not as I do. How can we support something like this when we know the Premier is not being forthright in his policies - so-called policies - that he has taken from us anyway?

Now, talking about the wastage, Madam Speaker. Let's look at the Hull 100. In the Estimates - the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation says it is a good investment. Well, it started out at two-point-something million, supposedly. They paid $700,000 to purchase the vessel in Estonia and brought it over here. There is some question, by the way, even if they purchased the right boat. The one that was supposed to be looked at and selected. There was some question to that.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Get up a point of order, I say to the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. At least with the new Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he is someone we can talk to and listen to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, at least he can do that. He tried and he has at least -

AN HON. MEMBER: Someone who has a clue about the department.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and he makes an attempt, I suppose, at being a bit fair and not being too political, but the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, talk to him all you want, Madam Speaker, and what do you get? His mind was set from the beginning.

As a matter of fact, that minister made commitments that he never lived up to, but the new Minister of Works, Service and Transportation, so far -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) back on tomorrow.

MR. J. BYRNE: We will be back tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Environment is living in this dreamland talking about muzzles. The only people that I have seen muzzled is on that side of the House. The former sandbagger, maybe he still is a sandbagger.

The Hull 100, as I said, started out at two-point-something million and went up to $8.9 million, Madam Speaker. It is not into service yet. They do not know if it will ever be in service and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation says: I will be the first one to take a ride in that vessel. I hope so because I do not want to see $9 million out the window of taxpayers' dollars that should have been spent here in Newfoundland and Labrador in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: If this Administration had to adopt another one of our policies, Madam Speaker, we would see these vessels built in Newfoundland and Labrador instead of going out and buying rust buckets.

Why can't I support this? The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said talk about roads. I want to talk about the condition of roads in this Province; $23 million to be spent this year. An extra $1 million over last year; $300 million required right now and they want to know about roads.

Madam Speaker, we need millions of dollars to be spent in this Province on roads today. By the way, safety issues, I can go on and on and on. I want to talk about the Torbay bypass, if I get time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: How can I support a Budget where the Premier of the Province is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to promote himself? Again, last fall and this winter, the Premier decided to finally stop after untold pressure came to bear from members of this side of the House of Assembly, from the public, to stop him from wasting taxpayers' dollars on self-promotion ad campaigns. That is shameful, Madam Speaker, shameful.

Now, let's talk about the conflict. How can I support a Budget when we have a Throne Speech that is supposed to set out the ideas and the policies of this Administration and, when the Budget comes down forty-eight hours after, or whatever the case may be, we see a direct conflict. In the Throne Speech, the minister talked about having a plan, this grand plan, to help direct the Province in the future, where they are going to be going, and how they are going to address the deficit of cutting $300 million over the next four years. Then, when they bring down the Budget, the minister actually stands in her place and says to the public of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that they really are hoping that the economy will continue to grow and, because the economy is growing so much, they do not need a detailed plan.

In the Throne Speech they said they have a plan, and in the Budget Speech, forty-eight hours after, they said they do not need a detailed plan. Madam Speaker, again, how can I support a Budget when the minister herself does not know what is on the go? The Minister of Finance is contradicting herself.

The Minister of Labour again is - how do I put it? It is hard to sink into the Minister of Labour. I know members on the other side of the House get up and they repeat and repeat and repeat, and that was the strategy of the former, former, former, former, Premier of the Province, Joseph R. Smallwood, who thought that, by repeating things over and over, it would evidently sink in.

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is necessary on this side of the House to have to repeat over and over and over again for members on the other side of House. I expect there is a certain level of intelligence over there. They made it to the House of Assembly, I would expect that, but the Minister of Labour sometimes I have to question because he asks questions sometimes that leave me in serious doubt as to -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) over and over.

MR. J. BYRNE: You see, there he goes on with his nonsense again, Madam Speaker.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about why I cannot support this Budget. One of the things, of course, is the relationship -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave granted.

MR. J. BYRNE: I wanted to talk, Madam Speaker - do I have leave or not?

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a minute or two, to let him clue up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to talk about the relationship with their political cousins in Ottawa. Now, Madam Speaker, it is at an all-time low. We see the situation in Gander. I could expand on the situation in Gander - no communications. They left it too late to do anything. They talk about Port Harmon. I brought up questions in this very House of Assembly on Port Harmon and, again, they left it too late. I asked the minister here, and the Minister of Justice, could they not take them to court? Couldn't we seek a court injunction before the final day came down? No, could not do that. The next day, the Minister of Justice gets up and says: Well, after advising the Town of Stephenville to take the federal government to court, Transport Canada, on this issue... and he says: Well, we had to look at the chances of winning.

They had to look at the chances of winning. Yet, they advised the Town of Stephenville, after the fact, to take them to court. Now, that is the kind of stuff that they are getting on with on that side of the House. That is the kind of stuff they are getting on with on that side of the House.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I already have leave, I say to the Minister of Environment. I already have leave. You can withdraw it, if you like. I do not care. It is up to yourself.

Madam Speaker, we have again, for the first time in years and years and years, no roads agreement. Why? We have the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation going to Ottawa on a power point presentation, rinky-dink power point presentation. Again, we had the federal Member for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien, questioning the capabilities of the minister and the presentation itself. No roads agreement now, first time in years. The road for rails agreement is running out this year, Madam Speaker, and it is the first time in years and years we don't have any money, and we need hundreds of millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, we wonder why I, and members on this side of the House, cannot support this Budget.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, can I ask who withdrew leave?

I shall return.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to speak to the motion put forward by the Member for St. John's East as well, please, the non-confidence motion.

This government has not capitalized on the opportunities, in many ways, as far as rural regions are concerned, opportunities, far too often, in places like the Northern Peninsula. The forest industry is not something that I talk about every time I stand, because the fishery has dominated all of our communities, I think much more so than the forestry, and the troubles that it has gone through, through the mismanagement of the federal government and the provincial government, that has left the Northern Peninsula devastated. It seems the first thing you have to defend and talk about is the fishery, but the forestry is a very important industry on the Northern Peninsula as well.

Unlike the fishery, the forest industry's real benefits are trucked away and taken somewhere else. When I do talk about the forest industry, I often talk about Hawkes Bay. Hawkes Bay was built on the forestry, and it was completely a forestry town. It was a very prosperous town, one of the most prosperous towns, I suppose, on the Northern Peninsula back when Corner Brook Pulp and Paper came into the Northern Peninsula, in places like Hawkes Bay, Plum Point, Main Brook and a number of other places, and settled it. Through technology that changed, the industry became very different. We didn't evolve, we didn't take steps with it, we were left behind, and that was very unfortunate.

I think some of the things that governments have done, they have gone out there and looked to other alternatives. Instead of coming out and saying, this is a forestry town and there are solutions in this industry for this town, we looked at other ways. We went to make-work and those kinds of things. We went to even trying to put a fish plant in a place like Hawkes Bay which wasn't the way to go, because they didn't have the ability to compete, for sure, with places like Port au Choix and River of Ponds which were right on the ocean, very ideal communities to take care of those opportunities in that area.

Today, one of the entrepreneurs there who was in the forest industry all of his life, who came through all aspects, from going out and contracting with a chainsaw right on through to his own harvesting means, has now gone into the hardwood industry. He has gone out there and employed people. Twelve to fourteen people in a town the size of Hawkes Bay is a very significant feat indeed. He has gone out there and he has capitalized on the hardwood, because of the hard work and the long hours and the sheer drive that this man has had, to go out there and take an industry that he knows very much, and take what he knows about the hardwood and change it into something that is successful.

There are many things that are keeping this man back. One of the things that has been identified is that he cannot compete because of all the hardwoods that are coming out, especially with the flooring. The birch in that area, the vast majority of it, is only good for flooring and there needs to be an ultraviolet finishing, so that we can complete in the market with Quebec and Ontario and New Brunswick. We don't have that. A small business person in a place like Hawkes Bay, who has gone out there and built his business up to this point, needs a helping hand, so that he can create, instead of twelve to fourteen jobs, maybe twenty-five to thirty jobs, in a town the size of Hawkes Bay. That would be a great contribution but it would not be a big contribution for a government, with the size and the need, of bringing in a town that has struggled all those years, to go out there and turn around and have some employment.

The attitude has been, I think, that we won't really deal with the real problems, we won't give the real opportunities to the communities like Hawkes Bay that could go out there and built an economy that is sound and on a sure footing. Instead of that, we go out there and we have uninsurable programs and we have the means to get from here to there and that is all there has ever been. If someone can capitalize on those programs that get you from here to there, fine. If not, that is fine and we will just continue on.

I think this provincial government's willingness to take whatever Ottawa offers as a means to go out there and get by day to day has set the stage that has continued on. That path has continuously gotten worse, because they offer less and we accept less and we continuously go down the ladder. I think that is why today, when you go out there and you see what was offered for compensation back a few weeks ago, it is because we have accepted that. We have set the stage many times before this offer.

We see it as well, and I will go back to the fishery again, the opportunities that the shrimp offered places like the Northern Peninsula, that would have put us as a very prosperous place if we had gone out there, and the goal was to take this resource and maximize its benefits for this Province. The Northern Peninsula would have been much more of a benefactor if that was the line of thinking. Instead of that, we have taken a resource much less than the maximum that this resource offered, and settled to go out there to distribute as it is, in such a way, and get it in with programs that are uninsurable, or programs that fit, not having any real plan for a future that will see us competitive and see us viable.

The unfortunate part of this cod closure that was coming down - and I look at River of Ponds, another community in that neighbourhood, as mentioned, that was in a place that was very ideally located to capitalize on the cod fishery. There was, you know, a plant in that town that employed forty or fifty people. There were also forty or fifty people who fished from small inshore boats who have done very well. That community had a greater range of age than any other community, I suppose. I saw, in the District of St. Barbe, that they were there and they had young people in the fishery and they were prosperous, and that community was alive and vibrant, and it was all on a fishery. Today, that is gone. I think the sad part is that the people who go out there do not understand why, and the thought then of not being able to do this but to go down to a make work, it was an incredible reality that was dropped on those people. They were very shocked indeed.

Madam Speaker, talking about how we go out there in the programs, that we have to fit to meet the programs that are offered, and to go out there and have primary development, I was involved very much in an archeology project in Bird Cove in years gone by. Learning vacations was the theme, and it is even today. If we go out there, we have a unique place; we have our culture, our history. We went out there and we were putting it together, but we have to fit the criteria in order to go. What I saw in this case was that we drove away the people, the industrious people who wanted to get out there, and had the interest and the drive to put this together. Instead of that, we drove those people away. Then, there were people who fit the criteria who were forced to do whatever to maintain their homes and communities to keep it together. Those were the people who had taken on the lead roles, and they were not best suited to go out there and create something because they were not the ones who had the vision, the drive, to go out there and put this on the table, and it was very unfortunate indeed.

We talk of tourism. The roads on the Northern Peninsula are in deplorable condition. A quote that I got from someone, it will take somewhere from $50 million to $70 million from River of Ponds south to the park to put this road back in a good condition. That is the worst category of road to be replaced. That is how much of it needs to be replaced, that falls in that particular category. That is a big chunk of road that is the result of years without any regular maintenance or without any continuous replacement. It is a program that would see fit. It shows the lack of agreement that has left us without any meaningful investment into our roads.

I do not think I have ever stood and spoken about roads and not spoken about Sally's Cove enclave, and I am not about to do it this evening, because Sally's Cove enclave is an area, if you are driving from the south - and many people have to head north, basically, right now. To go there, when you go off the park's brand new pavement and a very good highway, when you hit that enclave it is quite an eyeopener because it kind of throws you towards the ditch. That is very unfortunate indeed when you have a road that is sending a very strong message, counterproductive, to all the marketing that we have done for the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador and through the Viking Trail Tourism Association, which this government has supported considerably - but in having such a deterrent, especially as those people are just getting used to the idea, just starting to explore the Northern Peninsula, it is unfortunate indeed.

It certainly - if we were out there - would have been the realization that when the road to Labrador was being built to know that the flow of traffic - and there must have been a study on the impact. To think about the age of that road and how it was built piece by piece. That road goes from thirty-eight feet wide, I think, to forty-six or whatever. It is quite a considerable difference because it was all piecemeal together.

MR. SPEAKER ( Butler): The hon. member's time is up.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating now is a motion of non-confidence. Certainly, we, on this side of the House, do not have a great deal of confidence in this government or this Administration.

Mr. Speaker, the other day I listened to the Government House Leader talking about the fact that he was so proud of this government's achievements over the last fourteen years. As a matter of fact, we intend on this side to hold this government accountable for what they have done or not done over the last fourteen years.

In the last few days I have put together some notes here. In fact, there are 101 reasons why we on this side have no confidence in this government. I have listed them all down - 101 reasons why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should not have any confidence in this particular government. Before I get into those 101 reasons I want to just reflect back on what the Government House Leader said the other day when he said: We are so proud of our fourteen years in government.

Let me talk about a few of the things that happened over the last fourteen years. Let me take you back to 1991. What was the present Premier doing in 1991? Well, one of the things he did on April 8, 1991, was support public sector wage restraint legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 1991, this Premier stood in this House and said that he was going to vote to restrain public sector wages. Therefore, this Premier now would like to have people forget about it. Forget about his past, forget about the fact that when he was President of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association he cried on the steps. When he came into the Legislature on April 8, 1991, he spoke during closure - closure was called on that motion. He supported Bill 16, it was called, which broke collective agreements and rolled back wages of public servants; this Premier, when he was in the government in 1991. Now he would like for you to believe that is in the past, that is forgotten, but this Premier is one of the few people in this House who has to stand on his record. He, today, would have you believe, and have all NAPE believe, have all CUPE believe, have the NLTA believe that he is out there honouring collective agreements. Let the truth be known. This Premier stood in this House on April 8, 1991, and he voted in favour of Bill 16.

We are supposed to have - this is a vote of non-confidence - confidence in that Premier's words. This is about trust. How can you trust a Premier who says one thing today and says I would never, ever back out on my word? Yet, in1991, he stood in his place and voted in favor of rolling back the wages that were legally and legitimately negotiated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, in March, 1993, he spoke in Grand Falls to a district Kiwanis Club and this Premier said he believed that government could reduce its deficit without reducing benefits of public employees. Because the Premier of the day, Clyde Wells, was not happy with what this Premier said, this Premier came back in the House on the next day and apologized to the House for not supporting the wage restraint strongly enough. Imagine that!

Premier Wells heard the current Premier, Premier Grimes, in 1993, speaking in Grand Falls to the Kiwanis Club in Grand Falls-Windsor. He did not speak aggressively enough - kick, I suppose, the public service employees hard enough - so he came into the House and literally apologized to the Premier, apologized to the House, for not supporting wage restraint strongly enough.

This Premier also stood in this House and supported the privatization of Hydro. On the twenty-fourth day of November, 1993, he voted in this House in support of privatizing Hydro. Mr. Speaker, that vote was on Division, recorded in Hansard, and the Premier's name is recorded as voting in favour of that particular measure.

Mr. Speaker, we just want to mention some of the other things here. Let's have a look at what happened in Cabot 500. I only have a few minutes to mention some of the things this Premier stood for, and why we today cannot take this Premier's word; because his history, his track record, shows that he says one thing and often does something else.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at Cabot 500. On the third day and the fifth day of April of 1995, this Premier failed to ensure the proper management of the Cabot 500 Corporation. He established it in April and then he disbanded it in1995, on the third day of November. He just cancelled it all, for rather questionable reasons, and it cost this government $1 million in court ordered compensation. That is the kind of leadership that this Premier's track record will show which we will obviously have to consider, because he is asking us here today: Do you have confidence in this government? We are saying on this side, there are literally dozens and dozens of reasons why we shouldn't have confidence in this government. As a matter of fact, without any effort at all, I marked down well over 100 reasons why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should not have confidence in this government.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few more minutes. I could talk about the Premier's stand on FPI. When the FPI trouble was on the Premier said: Well, I am so busy that I just didn't bother to ask the right questions. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect you, Premier, to ask the right questions at the right time. This Premier said: Well, I just didn't bother to ask the right questions.

We also have to look at this government's record, over fourteen years. MUN fees went up by 350 per cent. Over a fourteen-year period this government increased MUN fees by 350 per cent. Then they said: We are dropping them back by 25 per cent. Who is fooling who? You put the fees up by 350 per cent, dropped them back 25 per cent, and then said: Aren't we really good boys and girls? That is not the way it works. This government has a record and certainly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to know it. It is fourteen years of a record.

As I said, I have the documentation here. It has been compiled. I can tell you there are more than 100 reasons why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have no confidence in this government. Certainly they are looking forward to the opportunity to be able to give their judgement. The judgement of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will come, hopefully, really soon, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want the chance to render a judgement.

Just a few months ago, this Premier was touting all of his election reform that he was going to bring in. Now we find out that might not happen. A few weeks ago it was: I am going to be the great reformer. I believe in four-year terms; except for me, he would say. I believe in other reforms. Now, we understand: No, no, that is not going to happen. They are not going to bring in those election reforms now. Therefore, how can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - a few weeks ago, a couple of months ago, a big press conference talking about all the reforms they are going to bring in through the democratic system. Well, that has to wait, that is not going to be brought in in this session.

We could go on and talk about the deficit. How can you have confidence in a government that runs a big deficit year after year after year and then says: Oh, no, that is not really the way it is, we are doing pretty good. We now have a deficit of over $600 million and the Minister of Finance says: No, trust us, we are going to get rid of that. We are going to balance the books over the next four years; but then does not tell us how it is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, then I could talk about the use of special warrants; talk about the Nature Legacy Trust; talk about travel by the Minister of Culture and Recreation going off to Europe to visit the art galleries; talk about spousal travel that was in the news last year; talk about the Premier's $250,000 expenditure on advertising last fall. Why should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel that they can trust this government when we have seen so many cases where there have been blatant abuses of the taxpayers' trust?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, for example -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Five seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention the fact that today we note that the Premier is wanting to talk to the Prime Minister. Well, we remember a time when this Premier went up to the Prime Minister and came back and stood in this House and said: I have a deal on equalization. The Prime Minister listened to me. Then, of course, we listened to the news and the Prime Minister said: Oh, no, I don't have any deal on equalization. I did not make any deal with the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, how can the Prime Minister of Canada have any confidence in this particular Premier? None at all. The Prime Minister of Canada said he has no confidence in the leadership of this Premier and, Mr. Speaker, neither do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to everybody in the House that this member will not be asking for leave tonight, I can guarantee you.

It is too bad that the debate is not carried on television because that was one of the greatest speeches, I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, that I ever heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would think you might hear it or see it on Newsworld tomorrow. It is one of the best features that was ever delivered here in this House of Assembly. It is too bad it wasn't made earlier so the people of this Province could be informed as to what is happening here with the actions of the people who sit opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I will use my few minutes tonight in talking about a few things in my district. One of the things I want to refer to is this government, when they put forward initiatives to help rural Newfoundland and Labrador and when they bring forward legislation in this House - they talk about EDGE legislation and Double EDGE and all those kinds of helpful pieces of legislation - it is supposed to be implemented to help rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am just going to speak about a little business that is on the go right now in Bonavista, a little textile business that was started up by a local businessman there, and then he found a partner to get involved with him. What he is doing, Mr. Speaker, is making shirts, coveralls, trousers, fish plant uniforms and doing a good job. In fact, I dropped in to see him the other day and one of his orders was an order he had from the United States Navy to make fireproof coveralls, people, Mr. Speaker, from outside this country altogether. He is making shirts for the RCMP. He is making uniforms for federal departments in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, his frustration that he relayed to me was that he finds it difficult in order to do anything for the provincial government. In fact, he has called people he has been informed to make contact with and asked them if they would provide the specs so he might be able to provide uniforms to people like the wildlife officers and other uniformed officers who are employed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The only response he has ever gotten from this government is that they cannot provide him with specs because they don't have any and he should use the specs of Helly Hansen. That is the response he has gotten from people whose department heads sit on the opposite side.

Here is a fellow who probably has six or eight people employed there on a steady basis, who can increase those numbers tenfold if people would reach out and help him and realize the value of what he does and realize the wonderful product that he is producing there. Surely goodness, Mr. Speaker, if the product that he is producing is good enough for the United States Navy, if it is good enough for the federal government, then it should be good enough for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This would be a natural fit in a place like Bonavista, that has been hard hit by the closure of the fishery down there. It would be a natural fit for people who went to school and did a course in apparel technology, but this one person who can go and hire probably - I do not know where the limits would be, but he could certainly have thirty-five or forty people working there full time. He is not looking for any government handouts, not looking for any government funding. All he is asking for is the government to provide him with the specs of what they require in order for him to make uniforms that would be acceptable to the people who work for the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods, probably for the RNC officers. I do not know, but it comes to mind. They are uniforms that we buy and we pay for right here in this Province. The government, up until now, has not even seen fit to reach out and provide him with specs, and allow him to penetrate that market so that he might provide employment and carry on with an industry that can be certainly self-supporting and can provide much employment in a place that is economically depressed right now and certainly needs a hand up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on tourism. When we go and talk about Bonavista being one of the focal points of tourism in this Province, and you look at some of the things that have been done down there, and have been done with government investment, and you look at the Matthew Legacy Building, you look at the Matthew itself, the Matthew replica, you look at Cape Bonavista, you look at what they are doing down in Port Union with the re-creation and the refurbishing of the Coaker Premises and the Fishermen's Union Trading Company. It is an area, Mr. Speaker, that people want to some and see. Tie that in with places like Trinity, the Trinity Pageant and the other tourism attractions on the Bonavista Peninsula, and we can have a very viable tourism industry. It will never take the part that fisheries played. It will never take up the employment that once created, but it can help fill the void. It can help provide seasonal employment. It can help people continue to live in places like Bonavista and Catalina and Port Union and Melrose.

Mr. Speaker, tourists comes to the Bonavista Peninsula today and park their trailers halfway down over the Peninsula road, over Route 230. They come, and they go into service stations there and inquire about the condition of the road, and they park their trailers there, leave their trailers halfway down the Peninsula, and take their car or their truck if they want to continue with their journey. That is the way they go to Bonavista and Port Union, because the road is so bad there. On parts of that road, as I stated here earlier, the speed limit is reduced to 30 kilometres an hour. That is less than 20 miles an hour over the main road leading to the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would like to touch on is the cost of insurance. A big topic. I can tell you that it is going to be a hot topic in this House one of those days. We see the prices now skyrocketing and we are seeing the minister make some attempts to try to offer consumers a choice of what it is that they want, and what it is that they must pay in order to take out an insurance policy, which is compulsory. In order to drive a car in this Province today, there are two things you must have. You must have a driver's licence and you must have insurance. It goes hand in hand. You cannot drive a vehicle on the roads of this Province today without insurance or without a driver's licence. When you look at the cost of buying that particular policy, we look at asking consumers to make choices on what they want. Nobody talks about the taxes that are being paid on an insurance policy in this Province today.

Mr. Speaker, when we brought in the HST, there is no HST on an insurance policy. There is no HST on an insurance policy. It is a policy tax, and when you look at the 19 per cent that the consumers in this Province are paying today for insurance, it is second to none anywhere in this country. In fact, in provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, insurance policy tax up there, in one of those provinces, is as low as 4 per cent. What do we charge here? We charge 4 per cent as a hidden tax and then we go out and slap another 15 per cent on top of the total cost of the policy and we tax that 4 per cent as well. So what we are doing is double taxation on people today who go out and purchase insurance, a commodity they must have, in order to drive a car in order to go to work.

Mr. Speaker, continually this past number of weeks we talked about employment insurance, the need to extend the EI, the need to make EI available to fishers and fish plant workers when they cannot fish due to ice conditions, through no fault of their own.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy had a great scheme to deal with employment insurance back on March 22, 2000. I think he might have been the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at that particular time. He went up to Ottawa - made a pilgrimage to Ottawa and met with his counterpart up there, the hon. Jane Stewart. The minister came back and his comments were to the reporter that he had the solution to the way employment insurance could be changed so that it would provide income and look after the people who had to access that program. He had a great solution. The solution was: People who work at seasonal jobs, such as fish plants, people who work within the tourism industry -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a few minutes, if I could, to finish up the topic?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: His great scheme was: People who work in restaurants and people who would work in other service industries - at Tim Horton's, I guess, and places like McDonald's - if they got laid off the minister's suggestion was: The employer should pay them high enough wages in the fourteen or fifteen weeks that they worked so they would not have to collect employment insurance at all. What a great scheme! Go out and tell a restaurant owner down in Bonavista, where they hire people for four or five months in the summertime, that they have to pay employees enough money to compensate them for employment insurance. Then, I would suggest to you, there would not be many restaurants opened and you would not see many people working within the service industry in this Province. It was a situation where those people would have to make probably $30 an hour in order for them to have enough savings in order to carry them over and not apply for employment insurance. That was the minister's scheme. That is what he believes should happen.

Mr. Speaker, I understand my time is up and not to take advantage of that I will pass it on. I understand my colleague for Trinity North has some important points to make. With that I will sit.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As we talk about this motion of non-confidence, I want to talk about a couple of things that brings on a motion of non-confidence. I want to start by talking about a special event that occurred in Trinity North last night. We had 175 people gathered in a school last night in Trinity North to talk about this government's commitment to them two years ago. That commitment was to build a nursing home in Clarenville. They made that commitment two years ago and now they are saying: Where is the nursing home? Obviously, we cannot trust this government to deliver on the promises that they made and are continuing to make.

The same thing happened in Gander. Ten years ago they said we are going to do this renovation to your hospital and we are going to do it quickly. What happened? Ten years later it is still not done. The people of Gander are saying we cannot trust this government to deliver. Whether it is 2003 or 1993, in ten years it has not changed, it has not really changed.

In fact, last night's event was sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce wrote the Minister of Health and Community Services and said: We are planning to have a meeting. We do not know when it is going to be. You pick the date and come out at your convenience and we will organize the event around your calendar. The minister sent out the standard form letter but he forgot to read the letter of invitation because the form letter said: I am not available on that date, I have prior commitments. The invitation was an open-ended one. Pick the date you want. Fill in the blanks. Just tell us what night you are free, when you want to come out, and we will set it up for that night. The standard form letter went out because this government just ignores what people are saying. Last night people were saying: How can we believe what they are saying? The minister is saying he is not available any day, anytime, anywhere, any year, to come to Clarenville. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, he has a pretty busy schedule. Obviously he has something planned for this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, when we start talking about events and the government is functioning in that fashion, it is little wonder that the members in this House, and our colleague, would stand and propose a motion of non-confidence. I believe, not only the members on this side of the House, but I think the rest of the people in the Province, have lost confidence, have lost trust, in this government's ability to be able to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, last night's event in Clarenville prompts me to think about not just the people who are in the Clarenville area, the Arnold's Cove area, Musgrave Town, Random Island, Southwest Arm, that entire region - I guess, it runs from maybe Port Blandford down to Lethbridge, Britannia, Petley, Southport, Hillview, that entire region. When you speak about the population of that region it forces you to think about the rest of the Province, and look at what is happening around this Province with an aging population. How is this government treating our aging population? How have they treated our seniors?

When these people find themselves at those vulnerable years in their lives, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourselves: What kind of services do they need? Some of them want to be in nursing homes or should be in nursing homes. Some of them need home support. Some of them are trying to get into personal care homes. When I look at a list, Mr. Speaker, around this Province today there are over 450 people waiting to get into nursing homes; 450 people trying to get into nursing homes in this Province.

This government has not, as I said a couple of days ago, adequately prepared for what we are experiencing today. Five or ten years ago, if we had had a lot more vision, a lot more foresight, we would be better positioned today to deal with this extensive waiting list. We have about three hundred and some odd people on a waiting list to get home support. These are people who are in their homes, unable to care for themselves, looking for some level of support to be able to stay in their homes in a safe caring environment. I think safety is the operative word, Mr. Speaker, because these people are very vulnerable. These people are not going to be in a position to care for themselves in a safe kind of fashion.

Just to touch on one of those areas, Mr. Speaker, personal care homes, we have a large network of personal care homes in this Province. Many of them, in fact, as I look at this list that we have here, there are probably - that is the wrong list. I thought I had a list of the numbers. There are several hundred personal care homes in this Province, many of whom have been around for a long time providing a dedicated service, providing quality care to the residents of the regions in which they are situated. Unfortunately, many of them are experiencing tremendous financial difficulties. They are having some difficulty surviving, most of which has to do with the lack of funding, a lack of attention, a lack of funding from this government.

It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, for these people to survive today when, in fact - they have had investments, yes, and the minister will stand and speak and say that he spent $1.3 million this year, $1.3 million of additional money last year, and pumped it into personal care homes, but one of the things that he has failed to say at that same time, he has put it into the personal care home sector to do two things: firstly, to increase the number of clients who receive benefits, which is important. We need to expand the number of people who are eligible for benefits so more of these people on the wait list can be accommodated; but, in the process, it is also extremely important to have a rate of return to those personal care homes that allows them to stay in business, that allows them to have a reasonable rate of return on their investment, allows them to service the significant debt that they have accumulated but, equally as important, it allows them to have an adequate profit to reinvest in their properties to do such things as recently has been ordered by the Fire Commissioner's Office, which is to install sprinkler systems.

These are things that are necessary, critical to safety, but unless they have adequate revenues and an adequate source of income, they are not going to survive. I think the minister and his staff have to be positioned and have to recognize that when these personal care homes start closing because of bankruptcy, they are not able to survive, what is going to happen to those residents who are in those homes, and where are they going to be placed? A fundamental question, Mr. Speaker. Are we, in fact, ready today, have we positioned ourselves, and is our health system capable of responding to the increasing demands of an ever aging population? What are we doing today to prepare for that?

This year's Budget acknowledged that the minister has agreed to invest some new money into personal care homes. He is putting new money into at least one long-term care facility in the Province, and that is in Grand Bank, and that is admirable. That facility is needed, and the investment is worthwhile, but I ask, Mr. Speaker: What does that do to the wait list I just described? The investment this year and the planned investment for next year, as I understand during the Estimates discussion, will do nothing to alleviate the wait list we have here.

I heard the Premier talk yesterday in response to questions about P3s. There has been a debate in the Corner Brook region, a debate provincially about the Corner Brook situation, about using P3s as a concept. I heard the Premier stand yesterday and say: Yes, I have agreed that I will meet with members of CUPE to talk about P3s - but here is what he went on to say, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say, and it is directly in Hansard: I want to meet with members of CUPE to be able to explain to them about P3s before we, in fact, go ahead and do it.

It wasn't that we are going to consult with them, garner some information, gain some insight, listen to what they have said, and if the points that they make have merit then we would, in fact, respond to that and respect that position and, in fact, build it into and factor it into the decision that we make; but, he did not say that. What he said effectively is that we are going to bring you in, have a discussion with you, but we are not going to pay any attention to what you are saying, because really what we want to try to do is to bring you in, have a discussion and then, after we have had the discussion, ignore what you have said, tell you what we are going to do and why we are going to do it. That is exactly what they are going to be doing.

I say to the Minister of Labour, who just acknowledged my presence and my speaking -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: (Inaudible) last night.

A couple of minutes to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You do not want to hear the comment, I gather.

AN HON. MEMBER: I do not want to hear about your political rally.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are still people awake in the House tonight, Mr. Speaker, although we sit at a late time. It is certainly interesting to listen to some of the debate, especially later on in the night. I guess, when the cameras are off, there is a different debate that occurs in this House. What is interesting, of course, is that now there is not one for one any more, after 10:00 p.m., it is just this side of the House. It is funny how things have changed.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to some people make some comments here tonight. You cannot help but reflect back over a few things that are so noticeable in the House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, there are a number of members on this side, on May 3, who had an anniversary of ten years in this Legislature. I know there are members on the opposite side who have many more years. The Member for Terra Nova, I do not know exactly how many years. I know he and the Member for Lewisporte are the most senior members in the House today, currently. Also, of course, the Premier was here since 1989 and there are a few other members across the way. Over ten years you certainly reflect on a few things, how things have changed in this Legislature and in this particular Chamber.

We all wonder, Mr. Speaker, what it will be like the next time, after we come back in the fall session, what the face of this Legislature will look like. As you look at the pictures in the halls outside, you see the different faces, the different faces of the people who have changed over that period of time, in the last ten years; we will go back that far. Also, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about this motion tonight, I have seen some very different debates on this topic in this Legislature in my short time. Ten years is probably a short time compared to the Member for Terra Nova or the Member for Lewisporte. In my ten years, I have seen some different faces on this Legislature, especially when we talk about this particular non-confidence motion. Some of these come up every year and everybody has their crack at it and so on, but it is interesting to reflect back a little bit.

I remember, as budgets have been presented in this House, the different atmosphere that can be seen in this Legislature. I remember the previous Premier in this House and, of course, the whole glitz and cameras and all the lights and hoopla and all the members on that side of the House lining up and shaking hands with the then Premier Tobin who loved the glitz and the cameras.

MR. TAYLOR: Lights, camera, action.

MR. SHELLEY: Lights and cameras and action.

Of course today, with the change with the cameras in the House of Assembly, there have been some changes to even the Budget presentations, how it is presented in this House. But it is certainly worth noticing, Mr. Speaker, of how people present themselves differently today. Of course somebody alluded to it earlier tonight, I think it was the Member for Torngat, talking to some of his members who may not be returning. Not may not be returning, but will not be returning. They have made up their minds and made their decision to move on.

It is an interesting time in political life when you talk to members on either side of the House who have decided that their career in this profession has ended. It would be interesting to hear what they have to say. I know some members have already spoken and talked about how they are going to move on in life. We all realize, pretty quickly, when you really reflect over it - especially if you have been here for ten years or more like, I am sure, the Member for Terra Nova. When he reflects back on this and looks at this Chamber and sees what happens in here and how important it is, and how proud all of us should be to be representing people in the Legislature - when you stand here you are representing a lot of communities, in some cases, like in my district, the number of people you are representing and the issues that you brought to the floor of the House of Assembly. I wonder what is going through the minds of the members who know they are not coming back here? What a different feeling it must be, Mr. Speaker, and probably a relief.

I have seen it in the Member for Lake Melville. I cannot help but recognize the Member for Lake Melville who, every time you look over there, has a big grin across his face. Just a sigh of relief every time you talk to him about when the writ is dropped. Can you imagine the day that the writ is dropped, when the Premier finally decides to drop the writ, whether it is tomorrow or next month? The Member for Lake Melville, what a relief off his shoulders that he is moving on. My time has ended here. He is satisfied with the decision he has made and he is going to move on in life, but knowing -

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. SHELLEY: And the Member for St. John's North, Mr. Speaker. Every time you mention to the Member for St. John's North the day that the writ is dropped is the day he is finished. If there is a night flight that night to Florida, I think the Member for St. John's North will be on the flight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) there is nothing wrong with that.

MR. SHELLEY: There is nothing wrong with that. As his tan started to fade, he even mentioned himself today - nothing wrong with that, I say to the member. That is absolutely right, and that is the point I make here tonight.

With due respect to all those members, and the Member for Lake Melville who has made his own personal choice to move on - he has served his time and his constituents well, I say to the Member for Lake Melville. He did the best he could to represent the people, as he was elected here to do. He should be proud of the time he spend here, and the Member for St. John's North, and the Member for Gander and the Member for Burin-Placentia West - somebody already recognized her tonight and made notice of it. There is one other. Who is the other member who has already announced?

AN HON. MEMBER: St. George's-Stephenville East.

MR. SHELLEY: St. George's-Stephenville East, Mr. Speaker. We try to keep these districts straight, as they change every time. Those are the five members, Mr. Speaker. With due respect from both sides of the House, people look over to them and say, you know, they decided to end their careers in this Chamber in representing their people. With due respect to them, they feel they have done the best they could. They have stood in this House many times and have seen the bantering back and forth. I wish them all well. Anybody who has taken the time to serve in political office, whether it is at the provincial or federal level, or the municipal level which we forget a lot of times, or whatever level, in the capacity that they have chosen, I wish them well.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, they will enjoy family more. We all know what a sacrifice it is on families, especially young families. I do myself. I wish them all well, because they have served their time, whether two years, five years or ten years.

I cannot imagine somebody like the Member for Terra Nova, a senior member in the House - I think he is the most senior, if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Terra Nova, yes, the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: In political years.

MR. SHELLEY: The member says: In political years. He is absolutely right. Really, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the Member for Terra Nova and all of the things that he can reminisce on and talk about in this Chamber. Not all the times so relaxed and so on. Although it does get tough at times, you never want to see it get personal, but it does at times and it has gone that route. Most people in this Chamber - I cannot say everybody, but most people - wish that it does not go that route a lot of times.

I can remember his predecessor, Mr. Roberts, who sat in that chair, who could not adjourn this Legislature without having a crack at somebody in this Legislature before he adjourned it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SHELLEY: Ed Roberts, his predecessor. He could not adjourn this House without a crack at somebody. I thought the Member for Terra Nova would pick up on that, but he certainly has not. He has had his times, and he makes his notes, but he has never.... Everybody has their own flavour and brings their own personality and character to the Legislature. Who knows? Really, we all get up here and we predict and we speculate and so on, but the truth is that nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. The fate of what we do here lies in the people who elect us. That is the bottom line. We can guess and poll and do whatever we want, but the truth is, once we step outside this Chamber, and if we are not re-elected, life goes on. People have made the quote: We live inside this bubble. And we do, to a point.

You do the best you can and you fight hard and you do what you think is best for your district, but the truth is, whether you are elected back in this Chamber or not, you still have to be respected for the job you did while you were here. I commend anybody, whether it is for one year, five years, or twenty years in some cases.

To the members who are leaving, not so much a tribute or anything - I think it is fitting that at times you get a chance when you do have a couple of minutes in this debate - I wish them well. I hope they have more time with their families and that they move on to do other things. They are still of young age and still have a good life ahead of them, and as they do down the road I am sure they will reflect back on this Chamber on what has happened over the years. Not at times when you sit in this House -

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It would probably be different tonight, I say to the Member for Conception Bay South, even from my perspective, to be perfectly honest with you, if the TV cameras were on, because we all act a bit different when that happens. We might as well admit to that, because on the opposite side of the House - we would not be one for one here tonight. It would be one for one back and forth if it was on. That is just the nature of the beast. I understand that happens. (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What is that?

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not think I have enough time to talk about that, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I did not win it (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, just a few words tonight. We have only five or ten minutes each, I think, on this particular non-confidence motion, but I took that time to do that. You could go on to all kinds of different issues, as some people do at times, but when we talk about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not take up any more time. Maybe someone from the opposite side will get up and say something.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I have known you now for several years, and you have known me for several years, and you know I am nothing but nice, I say, Mr. Speaker. I am nothing but nice. There are 206 bones in my body and they are all nice bones.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity tonight to stand and make a few comments in relation to a non-confidence motion as put forward by the Member for St. John's East. Certainly, I was not surprised to see the Member for St. John's East on his feet yesterday putting forward a non-confidence motion in this government and certainly in the Budget that was presented, for the simple reason that we are only here in this House passing on the messages and passing on the views and concerns from people in our districts and people in the Province. That is our job, to come here. There are many, many people in the Province who would like to have the opportunity to be here tonight to vote, whether it is tonight or whether it is on Thursday, in this non-confidence motion in this government.

All we have to do is look at, Mr. Speaker, over the past two-and-half years since Danny Williams became the leader of our party, the polls have shown that the people want a change in this Province. The polls have shown that people have no confidence in this government and that we are here into a situation now where we are down to the eleventh hour. Somewhere, the Premier has said, in 2003 we are going to have an election. It could be days, it could be weeks, it could even be months before there will be an election called. Then the people of the Province will have an opportunity to vote and lay their vote on the table in regard to the confidence that they hold in the members opposite, the confidence they hold in the government opposite, and certainly to look back over the last fourteen years, I say to the Minister of Labour, of this Liberal Administration, to give a stamp of approval and say that we are in favour or we are not in favour.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we will see, in time, the people of this Province vote that they are not in favour of a continuation of the last fourteen years of this Liberal Administration, but indeed they want a change. Indeed, they want an opportunity to move this government from office and put in a government with a vision, with a plan for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why I have no problem tonight in standing here and making my few comments on the non-confidence motion put forward by the Member for St. John's East; because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are here tonight - possibly the last sitting, the last night sitting, for many members here in the House. It is possibly the last night sitting. If we do not sit on Thursday night, this is possibly the last night sitting for many members in the House.

Mr. Speaker, when I look up in the back section and we look at the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Gander, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, who have announced that they will not be seeking re-election, these people have decided to move on. On behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we certainly thank those people for their service to the people of the Province. We certainly wish them well in their chosen fields after politics, and hopefully they will find some other way of continuing to serve the people of the Province. While we have not seen eye to eye with some of these members, especially the Member for Lake Melville who is up in the back row there now, Mr. Speaker, we haven't seen eye to eye at all times, certainly I wish them well.

Mr. Speaker, we have, over the past number of years here now, seen a government that is on its last leg. Desperate people do desperate things. We have seen some desperate things over the last couple of months and certainly over the last couple of years in relation to this government.

To say that anything would surprise me, nothing surprises me now, nothing. Nothing surprises me when it comes to this government. What they try to do is to discredit time and time again. Time and time again we have seen members opposite get up with their prepared text, Mr. Speaker, at the hands of their speech writers upstairs, and they come down here. Have they got a thought of their own? Have they got an idea of their own? Have they got a view of their own? No. They stand up here with a prepared text and read verbatim.

I witnessed here yesterday in the House, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon she read a speech. Yesterday evening around 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock she read the same speech. She was not allowed to veer away from the speech. She was not allowed to give her own opinion. She was not allowed to give her own view. She had to stick to the script, I say to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. You had to stick to the script. You were told before you came into the House, this is what you say today in the House. That was exactly what you said when you came down here at 3:00 or 4:00 o'clock. That was exactly what you said when you came down, and that is why the people in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I brought this point to members' attention on a number of occasions, that they ought to be speaking to the Chair, not to individual members in the House.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sorry about that.

Mr. Speaker, just to say that members opposite come into the House with a prepared text. We heard it yesterday morning in a newscast. We heard it from people across. They come in and they stand up and read verbatim from a prepared text. What is that text? That text, in most cases, is an assault on the Leader of the Opposition. Time and time again we stood here in the House and we watched members opposite go on an assault on the Leader of the Opposition. That is what we have witnessed here in the House. That is what we have witnessed here in the House in the past two or three months that we have been here, continuous assault on the Leader of the Opposition. We have looked over there and compared scripts from the people upstairs . They come down and stand on their feet here in the House and assault after assault, verbal assault, on the Leader of the Opposition. Shame on you! Shame on the people opposite to stand up here time and time again. Personal attacks. I have never seen the like of it since I came into this House ten years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I have never seen the like of the personal attacks, Mr. Speaker, that have been brought on the Leader of the Opposition. Everyone of you, bar none, have a disease. Everyone of you, bar none, have a problem. It is called Dannyitis. Everyone over there has Dannyitis. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment got -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Human Resources and Employment has a bad case of Dannyitis. I have witnessed it here in the House when he gets up. The Minister of Labour has a bad case of Dannyitis. I have seen him time and time again verbally attack the Leader of the Opposition here across the floor of the House, because you have a bad case of Dannyitis. I have seen the Minister of Mines and Energy crackling across the floor time and time again, another person with a bad case of Dannyitis and the Member for Bay of Islands is incurable with his case of Dannyitis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I have never witnessed in my life the heavy case of Dannyitis that the Member for Bay of Islands has. Where is it coming from? I would like to know who the first member was on that side to catch the disease? I think it was the Premier himself, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: He is taking up my time, look.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, he can have his time back, but you say that I have a case of Dannyitis. If the Leader of the Opposition goes to Cox's Cove and makes a commitment to the fire department and does not deliver on his commitment, it is not my fault. He has to take his own responsibility. It is not me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side of the House, are comrades. We go out to supper together. We dine together. We socialize together. We spend time together. We talk to each other. We plan strategy with each other. Myself and the Member for Trinity North - bosom buddies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Bosom buddies, I am telling you, and we have seen it here in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I realize you people on that side of the House do the same thing. That is why I am not surprised to stand up here in the House day after day and hear the Minister of Environment on his feet and get on with his personal attacks on the Leader of the Opposition because he caught Dannyitis from the Member for Bay of Islands. The Member for Humber East has it also, Mr. Speaker. Lo and behold, the Member for Port de Grave has a wicked case of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I will get to him in a minute.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Port de Grave has a wicked case of Dannyitis also. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that medication will be found - I don't think, if you searched the world over, the medication will be found to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate, and call for Orders of the Day, Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act No. 2, Bill 6. That is Order 7, Mr. Speaker, Bill 6, second reading.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax No. 2." (Bill 6)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to do second reading on, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act. It speaks to a number of initiatives that were outlined in the Budget, ranging from credit for a disability tax, particularly the low income seniors' benefit which has been changed and, in fact, raised. The third, of course, is the income tax holiday for small business. Currently, the disability amount that may be claimed for provincial personal income tax is $4,233 and the amendment announced in the Budget will increase that to $5,000. This, of course, is a benefit that is put in place to recognize the increased cost associated with people living in a prolonged and severe mental or physical environment and are impaired of the same nature. This, of course, is in addition to the support they get from the Departments of Human Resources and Employment, and Health and Community Services.

In addition to this increase in the base amount, I also announced in the Budget a new disability tax supplement based on a similar federal measure for those who are under eighteen and who are eligible to claim the disability amount. This amount will be set at $2,353 for the taxation year 2003, and when you combine these amounts this will provide a tax reduction of $330 for the current tax year. For those with insufficient income to use the credit, both the base amount and the supplement can be transferred to a supporting person. I think that is very important for those who are providing support in their own home, or for family members.

The second amendment in the bill speaks to the increase in the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit which was introduced in 1999. It is now being increased from $300 to $350 for a single senior, and for a senior couple it is being increased from $600 to $700. This, of course, is the second time that the benefit has been increased since its implementation in 1999. The first increase went from $200 to $300, and now $300 to $350 for a single person, or an increase of $150, and for couples it has gone from $400 to $700, an increase of $300.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the third component of this bill also provides a corporate income tax holiday for new small business in growth sectors of the economy. This is very important to grow the economy and to try and attract businesses in specific areas of the Province and also specific economies which is very important to growing the environment. The tax holiday will also provide provincial corporate income tax exemption to the eligible new small businesses which are incorporated between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2006. Again the designated areas are specific for growth purposes, including: technology, aquaculture, manufacturing, export, tourism, research and development, forestry, agrifoods, processing, import replacement and cultural industries.

For businesses located on the Northeast Avalon, the tax holiday will also be provided for the new company's first three fiscal years. For those located outside the Northeast Avalon, the tax holiday will apply for five years. The new small business tax holiday will provide assistance to new business, particularly during a critical stage of their development in the early years. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that these are important steps to recognize seniors, the disabled, and also new businesses. Particularly, it provides relief for provincial corporate income tax for the first three to five years and these firms, of course, obviously, would have more resources (inaudible) their growth at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your attention on this matter.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of aspects here. The first particular one I want to comment on is the one with the disability there. The minister knows full well I have been calling for this for some time, on last year's Budget and for the past number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am saying when the tax was separated from the federal tax, our Province froze theirs at the lower level and the federal government has increased theirs proportionately on the taxes.

We were told that our Province would drop our income level down to 49 per cent of federal tax. The minister and the department say now we are at 55 per cent of federal tax. When you look at the disability credit for people under the federal tax and look at the disability under our tax, we were not getting a 55 per cent equivalent. In fact, the deduction allowed went up federally with inflation and ours was frozen at that amount. I have done news releases and I have spoken on this issue before. I am delighted to see in this Budget there was some movement in this regard here.

There are numerous other areas, I might say to the minister, in the Budget, similar aspects, that haven't moved. I will use similar examples that I expected. The education deduction, for example, did not move proportionately with the federal deduction. That is an area I know the minister was lobbied on. I raised it in the past, and I am delighted that there are some strides, at least, made to help people with disabilities. I can certainly, Mr. Speaker, support that particular clause there, clause 1, as it pertains to improvements here.

The seniors' benefit also, increasing the seniors' benefit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do have an hour, but I intend to take five or ten minutes to speak on this. I say to the member, if he wants to make any wagers we could be here for a long time tonight.

MR. REID: I got twenty bucks riding in you, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say, Mr. Speaker, if I could proceed without any disruption I should probably be able to conclude it within five or six minutes. I am sure, if the Government House Leader could quieten down the Minister of Education we might be out of here at a reasonable time. Otherwise, there are two bills here and I am entitled to an hour each. That would put it at 2:05 roughly. If I get the generous leave I got last night from the minister here it might be even longer.

The second point I wanted to make was with reference to small business. Under that aspect of small business, I think it is important -

MR. REID: Tell me when you get tired, Loyola, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The member doesn't know parliamentary procedure, Mr. Speaker, calling people by their names and so on. He knows that is not parliamentary. He did it last night for an hour and a half here in this House. There was pure chaos, I might add, in the House, and that was that person. He is starting again tonight. He just might be here a long time tonight, I might add.

I may use all my time in committee on these bills, hours and hours we can use in committee. You might want a closure motion to finish it, I tell him, before we are finished with this bill if he keeps up that nonsense he got on with last night.

Mr. Speaker, the point here, in the clause of the bill to make amendments to give new small businesses a corporate income tax holiday. I think it is positive to give an income tax holiday to businesses. They are established in certain regions of the Province and also in certain sectors that are considered to be open for growth. For example, I think the minister alluded, these growth sectors, like: technology, aquaculture, manufacturing, export, tourism, research and development, forestry and agrifoods, also in the processing import replacement and cultural industries. Traditional industries, of course, are not going to be the beneficiaries of this particular break on tax here.

These amendments are, I might add, of benefit for new businesses and I support any initiatives to encourage new business to start off and get a lower tax break or a credit there, especially in areas of the Province where it is more difficult to set up business. Off the Northeast Avalon, for example, in the western part of this Province, the south coast, the Northern Peninsula, Labrador and any other area of the Province outside this area. I think it is positive to provide incentives and encouragement for this to happen.

I will get back to the particular point there, Mr. Speaker, on the credit for disabilities. It is something that is long overdue because I spoke to one senior this year on their taxes, when they filed their tax they are paying over 300 per cent more in provincial tax than federal tax. A person was in my office, a person who lobbied the minister. I spoke with that person because he did not get the benefits. Our provincial tax system when it was separated from federally, it crucified seniors, disabled people and students. Federal gave the break and we were shamed, Mr. Speaker, into adding this particular thing that we have called for, for some time. It is long overdue. It will be of benefit next year in the tax system. Unfortunately, the people this year, who cannot afford to reap the benefits of getting a break on their taxes for the last fiscal year, when this should have been done right at the point that the federal government tax and the provincial tax were separated from each other.

I think we should move with less tax brackets. We should make it less cumbersome for people. We moved from ten tax brackets back in the 1990s to simplify the tax system. We moved to three tax brackets. Right now there are seven tax brackets again and we are getting back to a system where it is more complicated and more difficult for people to be able to file their taxes. People are confused and they complain a lot. I know a little bit about it, I used to assist with hundreds of income taxes in preparation of that, and I know the frustration that people experience in this.

I do support this. I won't unduly delay this bill. There are particular points here that could have gone further, but I do support the particular aspects here in this. I am sure any other comments I have, Mr. Speaker, I can make in Committee on the bill, or if I have specific questions on any clause of the bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 6, To Amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, just as a general comment, this bill amounts to a small little bit of tinkering with some income tax provisions that provide certain benefits for people who have disabilities, an extra fifty dollars on the seniors' benefits, a rather modest affect on people's incomes.

The consistent theme of changes in our tax system - as the Member for Ferryland mentioned we went from ten tax brackets to three. All of the changes that have been made over the last number of years, the end result of it is that - the Statistics Canada report that came out today said that the incomes of people in this country have not changed, have not kept up with inflation, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the people on the high end of the scale. The old comment about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is really true on an ongoing basic. The people who have lots of money are managing to keep it by the virtue of our income tax system, by virtue of the perks they have in society, by virtue of their ability to manipulate the system, and the minister is here tinkering with a few minor points that have only marginal affects on people's way of life. If she thinks $50 for a seniors benefit is making a substantial difference to people' lives in this community, then she should try and find something else to brag about.

Obviously, we support any change that might have some influence on people's circumstances, but this is clearly nothing to crow about. The disabled people in our communities have substantially increased costs for ordinary living, whether it be for drugs, whether it be for equipment that is required, whether it be for special transportation needs and all sorts of expenses. While this measure here brings our law into line with the Income Tax Act of Canada in a way that it was not in the past, it does not fully compensate and make up and create a level playing field for people who live with disabilities and have significant expenses related to that. Nevertheless, we support the changes that are brought in here. We are not going to oppose them.

With respect to the special provisions and tax holidays for corporations, I would like to see some evidence that this is actually going to simulate a particular small business activity, obviously, it may give a tax break. Whether it is actually effective in creating new businesses, whether it is effective in creating new jobs, is really a matter of total conjecture on the part of the government.

I do not think people are going to set up a new business because they have this legislation here. I am told, Mr. Speaker, by such people, as the small business - Mr. O'Brien, what is his first name?

AN HON. MEMBER: Peter.

MR. HARRIS: Peter O'Brien. I do know him by name. I just remembered his first name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He may be retired but he had an article in the paper just yesterday. So, he keeps his oar in the water, as it is. When I spoke to him about this on Budget Day, he said: Businesses do not make any money in the first five years anyway, so this kind of provision is of no consequence. If that is what a small business advocate is saying, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the minister is bothering, except to be able to say that you are doing something that supposedly stimulates small business activity in the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, while the provision is there, if it is of some help, so be it, but I remain to be convinced that this is a way that is going to bring about the stimulation of the economy of rural Newfoundland. There has to be more larger scale activity by government to do that. Some of the ones that we spoke about earlier today, the minister does not seem interested at all in thinking about in terms of ensuring the money in our pension plans is reinvested in this Province, is actively used to create a business activity in this Province, provide service to this Province to ensure that we have adequate funds for establishment of longer term care facilities which are needed in this Province; usually the kind of things that are more direct interventions that will have an effect on the stimulation of economic activity and the creation of money that is going to change hands and be spent and be used in this economy which creates the wealth that we need.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to vote against the bill but we do not see it as providing any great relief to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, if she speaks now she will close the debate.

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

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

Again, a summary on the three components of the bill: related to a benefit for disabled taxpayers, an increase to seniors' benefit and also a personal exemption as it relates to disabled, and the third one being a tax holiday to try to grow growth in business in certain sectors of the Province.

Thank you very much, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 (No.2)," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 8, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." (Bill 7)

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

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

Again, tonight I am pleased to introduce An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax arising from an announcement in the Budget. This is an ongoing initiative around the payroll tax, whereby this year we have raised the threshold from $500,000 to $600,00. Meaning those businesses and entities that have a payroll tax of $600,000 and less, do not pay payroll tax. There is a tailing off component where those that fall between $600,000 and $700,000 will pay a decreasing amount. Eventually, of course, Mr. Speaker, we would very much like to eliminate this tax, but because it generates revenue - revenues that we put in towards, particularly, our health care system. We believe we have to be able to find that money before we are able to eliminate the tax completely. We have moved to a point now where we have 100 per cent of all of our small employees-employers off the payroll tax. A significant number of the medium-sized and many of the larger ones, including the federal government, of course, are still paying payroll tax.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth increase to the exemption threshold since 1998. Approximately 2,200 employers have been removed from the tax roll and a savings of around $900 million has been passed on to our employers in the Province. For us, employment is a priority and we would certainly like to move to even a higher payroll tax exemption and eventually be able to eliminate it totally so that we can continue to create jobs and stimulate economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm for the House today that our government remains committed to eliminating the payroll tax. Again, we know that we must find the opportunity to continue to grow the economy and have the fiscal capacity to do that so we will not jeopardize any of our programs and services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly support reduction in the payroll tax because payroll tax, as we know, is a tax on jobs in our Province, and any tax on jobs is not a positive indicator for businesses. I spent over twenty years in business myself and I know when there are extra burdens added on by governments, you reciprocate by trying to get by with an employee less in numerous areas. I think that is a disincentive for hiring people and creating jobs in our Province. We certainly would support that.

Payroll tax is becoming less and less meaningful in our Province to our revenues. Last year we took in $83,800,000 in revenues in payroll tax. Out of that amount we took in, 40-some per cent of that was from ourselves. It came in from our Province and went out again. The federal government was another 7 per cent or 8 per cent - and municipalities. So in government, in our own taxes, that $88 million was only about $50 million because it was an in-and-out item.

The value of payroll tax now is really down to only about a $40 million benefit as opposed to $83 million last year that showed in our books because we are collecting most of that from ourselves. The biggest contributor - I should say, not the most - of that is ourselves. The provincial government last year contributed roughly 42.5 per cent, I think, of that $83 million came right from ourselves. So we tax ourselves. We pay it to ourselves and then we spend it. It is an in-and-out item. It means nothing. Take away that 42 per cent or so and we are left with between 57 per cent and 58 per cent of $80-some million. So that is only $40-some million collected from other sources. Five or six million dollars of that came from the federal government and a small portion, I think, only in the vicinity of several hundred thousand came from municipalities. It is becoming a little less meaningful as a source of revenue for our Province and it has been noted as a disincentive for creating jobs in our Province.

What company out there today should be told you have to pay a tax because you created jobs? Because you are paying people better, you are increasing your payroll, why should you pay the price? You should be encouraged. Shouldn't there be incentives for people out there for creating jobs and giving the economy a boost, and creating jobs that come back to us in income tax, in sales tax, in other revenues and so on, in other fees and assessments in the Province by somebody having more disposable income in their pockets? We certainly do support an increase in that. This year there are incremental changes, between $600,000 and $700,000 in increments, I think, of $25,000 which will reduce that right up to the $700,000 range - increments of $25,000 for each level. It would be an improvement, and hopefully the economy of our Province will permit payroll tax to be eliminated. If it cannot be done in one fell swoop, at least we can move in that particular direction to eliminate it within a reasonable period of time.

We are supportive of eliminating a tax on jobs, Mr. Speaker, here in our Province. We do not want to see - it has long been a policy of our party that there should not be taxes on jobs in our Province. It was instituted as a health and post-secondary education tax and, I think, we need to look at it historically. How many here really think that money is earmarked and goes to health and post-secondary education? It goes into the Treasury of our Province. It goes into the Treasury and you might see it go out for health and education because they are the biggest expenditures that occur in these areas, but it is not an earmarked fund anymore. It has lost its meaning as a tax. It should not be called a health and post-secondary education tax because it is not earmarked as such. They can call it something else. Maybe the more appropriate thing it could be called is tax on jobs. That would be more appropriate, or another tax because companies hire people and increase their payrolls. The more you hire, the more tax you pay on that job. The more companies hire, the more profitable they are, they pay more in corporate income tax anyway. They pay more in other types of taxes to our economy, so why should that be a case where there is an increasing burden here because they want to create employment and employ people here in our Province and bring the unemployment rate down?

So, we support it. We have been a long advocater of this. We did not agree with it on day one. We thought it was detrimental to the improvement of the economy here in our Province and to encourage employers to add new employees to their payroll. So, we will support this. I will not delay it any further, but I want to make these particular points here because I think they are important in knowing exactly where we stand on it and what we have been advocating all along for the past number of years.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this because we have heard similar speeches from the Member for Ferryland for a number of years on this. His tax on jobs notion, for starters. Number one, whether it is $85 million or $42 million, it is revenue that we need. Now, if we do not have that revenue we cannot spend it, so our deficit either goes up by $42 million or $84 million or we cut back that amount of expenditures. So, we need the revenue. Now, we can get rid of this tax but then we have to find the revenue somewhere else. So, who would we tax instead? That is the first question I have.

The second issue, tax on jobs. We hear this a lot, that the payroll tax is a tax on jobs. I do not really believe, Mr. Speaker, that employers sit around and say: Well, will I hire another person or will I not? Gee, I don't know. Maybe I will not hire this other person because there is a payroll tax there. It might cost me an extra - is it 1 per cent? What is it per $100 per payroll?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: For every $100 I pay this employee, it is going to cost me an exact $2. Maybe I will not hire this person.

I do not think employers make decisions on the basis of that. In theory, payroll taxes - I mean economists, the purists, will tell you that payroll taxes are a disincentive to employment, but they will probably also tell you that income taxes are a disincentive to making income, too. I do not know of anybody who went broke paying income tax. To pay income tax you have to have an income. Similarly with jobs and employment. Obviously, it is a part of the payroll burden. It is part of an expense of doing business, but it is not something we should see that the taxes should be reduced. What you say is: Well, if they make income they are going to pay corporate income tax.

Every year we get up and say: Taxes are too much on business. We have to lower the corporate income tax. So who is going to pay all the taxes, Mr. Speaker, is what I want to know?

If we want to start reducing taxes, I would say the place to start is on the people who have the least amount of money because they are paying the highest percentage of their actual disposable income in taxes. They do not have enough to feed themselves, Mr. Speaker, yet they are paying taxes.

Do you know somebody who earns the minimum wage and happens to be lucky enough to be employed for the full year, and would make less than $10,000, would pay a considerable amount of their income in income taxes? What we really should be doing, if we want to start stimulating the economy, is let those people keep that money because do you know what they are going to do with it? They are not going to be putting it into the New York stock exchange, Mr. Speaker. They are not going to be putting it in a sock. They are going to be going out and spending that money. They are going to be spending it in stores and spending it in the businesses that you are talking about. They are going to be stimulating the economy because every cent that they get they spend because they do not have enough money to spend now to meet their basic needs. They are going to spend it on housing. They are going to spend it on clothing. They are going to spend it on food. They are going to spend it on services. They are going to spend it on things that they need and they are going to spend it right away. They are not going to keep it.

So, the most stimulative kind of tax reduction that can take place is an increase in the basic exemption for people who do not have very much money. That is the kind of thing that this government should be thinking about, even if it means keeping the payroll tax where it is for a considerable period of time. Yes, we would all love to eliminate taxes, but we all want to have the services too. What we really need, instead of going around looking for eliminating taxes on business enterprises where we are the lowest in the country, or making deals with Voisey's Bay, for example, that guarantees them either the Newfoundland tax or the Canadian average, whichever is better, giving them a guarantee tying our hands for the life of that project, what we really should be doing is finding ways to build a fairer tax system.

One of the way of making a fairer tax system, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the people on the lower income scale aren't paying as much taxes. In fact, New Brunswick did that just a few months ago. They gave a break on provincial income taxes to people making less than $12,000 a year, thereby offering a stimulation to the economy, because that money that would otherwise be paid in taxes is going to be spent to the economy and stimulate activity, improve the lot of people who are on lower incomes, provide an incentive to them to actually go out and earn more income because they can get to keep it all and spend it in the economy.

If I had my druthers, Mr. Speaker, if I was the Minister of Finance, I wouldn't be trying to pacify employers by having an incremental change every year, I would be finding ways to try and make the whole tax system a little fairer for people, especially those on the lower income level, instead of just running around with cliches such as the payroll tax as a tax on jobs. It is not a tax on jobs, Mr. Speaker, it is a tax that we need to provide revenue for the services that our people need. Until we can find a fairer tax system, I won't see why we should rush around to try and remove this tax.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, if she speaks now will close debate.

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

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

I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made a number of very important points because, again, if you are going to remove a tax you have to be able to find that tax base somewhere else to put back into health. Clearly, that is where the bulk of all of our revenues go.

I also think it is important to note that since 1998, when the threshold was at $100,000, and today in 2003 it will be $600,000, there have been 2,200 employers removed as a result of this increasing threshold. By this measure alone, 160 employers will come off between the threshold of $500,000 and $600,000 and another 120 will be impacted in a decrease over and above that, with the tailing off provisions from $600,000 to $700,000.

Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree it is going in the right direction. We would like to do it sooner, but when you are fiscally prudent you have to manage your resources as best you can fiscally and do it when you are able to do it, so you don't jeopardize existing programs and services.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 7)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act, Bill 10.

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

Committee of the Whole

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act." (Bill 10)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 5, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, Bill 5.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill 5)

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I wouldn't want it to pass through Committee stage without a brief comment on this particular bill.

It says, "... to provide that the manufacturing and processing tax credit would only apply to corporations actually carrying on manufacturing or processing in the province."

Certain companies do manufacturing and processing in the Province and a certain amount outside the Province. I support this because these companies should not be getting a benefit for doing manufacturing and processing outside the Province in the portion of their business, when they are an established company in our Province. They should do it here or they shouldn't get the credit. That is why we support that and we think it is positive to send that message, that we are not going to be giving breaks to people who have companies operating in our Province when they are doing a lot of the primary manufacturing and processing elsewhere.

I think it is time to ensure that our products and our businesses are maximized -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - in our Province. There should be more and further processing done in our Province because that is where the real jobs are and that is how we grow the economy, that is how we get more disposable income in the pockets of the people and we get a greater chunk of the gross domestic product, of which we are seeing so much going outside of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Since 1989, we have seen personal disposable income that was 82 per cent of GDP. Today, just fourteen years later, personal disposable income is only 59 per cent of GDP. That means we have dropped from 82 per cent to 59 per cent. That is a tremendous drop in a fourteen-year period. That is 23 per cent. That means the significant benefits that are arising from our growth in GDP, leading the country, are not staying in our Province and that is a sad story and we have to ensure that we maximize that and increase that. That means more revenues into the coffers of our Province in taxation and other methods.

That is why we support that and that is why we will give expeditious movement here in Committee for this particular bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill 5)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chairperson, I would ask that 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: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee has considered the matters to it referred, and has directed me to report Bills 10 and 5 passed without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to it referred and has directed her to reports Bills 10 and 5 carried, without amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn.

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