April 5, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 13

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud and pleased today to stand and congratulate a young student

in my district, by the name of Angie Bursey. Angie is a seventeen-year-old from

MSB Academy in Middle Arm. Just recently, Angie was awarded a very special and

prestigious scholarship award. It is an award that actually comes from the

United States, and it is called the John Motley Moorhead Scholarship. What is so

significant about this scholarship is, first of all, it is from the University

of North Carolina - Chapel Hill in North Carolina, and Angie was awarded

approximately an $104,000 scholarship, U.S. dollars, to attend Chapel Hill,

North Carolina.

What is more significant about this particular scholarship is, it started

with 3,600 Canadians, Grade 12 students, applying for this. Angie started the

process with an interview here in St. John's, which reduced the number to

seventy-two. Then she went on to Toronto, where it was reduced to twelve

students. Finally, for Canada, three out of the 3,600 were chosen and Angie was

successful in being one of the three Canadians chosen for this particular

scholarship.

I want to congratulate her, and especially her guidance counsellor who put

her on to the scholarship some time ago. Now Angie, at the age of seventeen,

will be heading to North Carolina next year to continue her studies and do a

full degree in pediatric surgery.

We want to congratulate Angie and certainly her parents, Rowena and Charlie

Bursey of Middle Arm, who are very proud of her today, and also her students,

and especially again her guidance counsellor, Tammy Richards, who made sure that

when she saw a special talent in this girl, she applied for this scholarship.

She has done us very proud, and I congratulate her.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May 4 and 5, Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook will be hosting

a symposium on the history of the forest industries in Western Newfoundland, a

symposium which is happily titled, Woodland Echoes. Participants to this

symposium will find themselves in a number of engaging activities with both an

historical perspective and a local flavor. Activities will include panel

discussions, theme dinners, lectures and interactive lectures by presenters with

a flare for bringing history to life. As well, there will be a comprehensive

tour of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, which last year celebrated its 75 th

Anniversary at Corner Brook.

I would like to commend the committee comprising of the staff and the faculty

of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, representatives of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper,

and members of the Newfoundland Historical Society who are involved in this

event.

Thank you.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to stand today and make a few comments on a student in my

district, Eugene Manning, who attends Fatima Academy in St. Bride's. Eugene

has just received word that he has received a $50,000 Canada Trust Scholarship.

Eugene was among 300 young Canadians who applied for the scholarship. They

were screened down to seventy. He was flown to Halifax for an interview, where

there were twenty finalists from across the country. Eugene is the only

Newfoundlander to receive this scholarship. He will travel to Ottawa the first

week of May to a dinner that will be held in honor of the twenty students who

received the scholarship. The scholarship is to attend any university in Canada.

Eugene has decided to attend Memorial University in September, in engineering.

Eugene just arrived back from the Future World Leaders Summit in Washington,

D.C., where he took part with hundreds of outstanding students from around the

globe, and presented to a variety of countries and international organizations.

They had a tour of the White House, the National Defense University, the

Organization of American States, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

I would like to take the opportunity today to congratulate Eugene on this

great achievement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no written statement, Mr. Speaker, but just to briefly ask that you

and all members of the House today join us in wishing Happy Birthday to the

Member for Burin-Placentia West. The number will remain a secret.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Deputy Premier has said that my caucus believes this is

my last day. Let there be no doubt that it is my last day as leader of the

party. They can believe it or not. I am going to tell them and you, it is my

last day in the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The strike is entering what I see as a new stage. The polarization that has

occurred in the last twenty-four to thirty-six hours, on both sides,

particularly by the use of inflammatory language, as I see it, by the leader of

the government, has added to that polarization.

The people in the Province are asking questions, and they are asking this

question: Where the issues, where the government and the unions themselves are

so close, how is it that we are that close that we cannot find a reasonable

settlement that is in the best interest of everybody?

I would like to ask the Premier today if he could, in the House - not in

front of the cameras, which he has been doing lately, saying one thing here and

going out and saying something else out there - if he could, in a forthright way

and manner, stand up and update us on what government's latest offer is to the

public service unions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, I want to say that this is a very serious issue. I would have to say

that, in an event like this, things often get personal. I know there have been

personal things certainly said most recently about me specifically, in terms of

my agenda and whatnot. Mr. Speaker, I can put that in perspective because I

understand that these are very difficult, frustrating times for everyone, and

everyone is interested in finding a resolution.

I will say that our most recent update on our offer is: 5 per cent in the

first year, 4 per cent in the second year, and 4 per cent in the third year. We

have given a commitment at this point in time which we will maintain, that we

will not speak publicly; the same commitment that Mr. Hanlon gave, and Mr.

Puddister, in the same meeting, that we would not speak publicly about that

specific issue. We both acknowledged verbally and gave our word that we would

not speak to this issue publicly.

I think it is important to note, by not speaking to it publicly, I think it

is clear to say that we have responded to each and every offer and have provided

offers ourselves in many instances to counter the ones that were offered, to do

two things: to provide a respectful offer to our public sector employees; and

also to provide a respectful offer that we can sustain on behalf of the 520,000

taxpayers in the Province whom we are also responsible to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Premier. Yesterday in the House, he said: We have

offered several different remedies which we will not discuss in public. Yet, he

can go ahead on open line programs and make public offers but he cannot update

the public in this House. He went on to say: but we will gladly discuss again

with Mr. Hanlon and CUPE representatives.

The head of NAPE today issued a statement: Today, I want to make it

abundantly clear that I release Roger Grimes from a commitment not to discuss

the contents of our meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - that I release Roger Grimes from a commitment not to

discuss the contents of our meeting.

I ask the Premier this question: Based on your commentary yesterday, could

you stand in the House and update the people on the remedies, using your

language and your words, that you proposed to NAPE and CUPE to solve this strike

in the benefit and for the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue is clearly this: we want to be very respectful of the negotiating

process. The real issue here is whether or not the discussions that we have had

with the leadership of NAPE have been passed on to the rest of the executive of

NAPE and the membership of NAPE. If I were to disclose, even despite Mr. Hanlon's

offer for me to do so, if I were to stand here today and say exactly what we

said in that meeting - in a private negotiating meeting - the first person I

would suggest to condemn me, followed by the second person from Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, would be the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition who

would suggest: Why don't you leave it to the union to take those offers back

to its membership? Then you would be accusing us of trying to go past the

leadership and directly to the members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road many times

before. We have had the questions asked in this Legislature where the member

opposite stood up and said: What are you trying to do now, pit the leadership

against the membership? We will not fall into that trap. The only question is:

When will Mr. Hanlon, himself, honestly tell his members exactly what we

discussed in that meeting? Because we will respect the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: They are his members. I call upon him to tell the members

what we discussed in the meeting, not me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about the word respect, and

he is right. This whole process, what happens with this strike and what has

happened or failed to happen in this House, is about respect and the Premier's

lack of it.

I will ask you this question: Did you have respect for the Members of this

House when asked questions directly in this House where you would not answer,

but yet went outside and inflamed the strike by talking about back to work

legislation? Did you have respect for the people of the Province and for your

negotiating teams when you personally inflamed the situation? That is the

question I put to the Premier today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting because we are all

in this House to do a job, and that is to serve the people of this Province to

the best of our ability in a way that is reasonable and respectful. While we

want to be very respectful, and I believe we are very respectful of our public

sector employees, by offering the single largest increase they have had in any

number of years. We are also trying to be, and I know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. I know it is not an issue about being

fiscally responsible but I have to remind the members opposite, what is the only

question they have asked specifically about the Budget? Our deficit and our

debt.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be responsible to the people of the Province. We have

to be responsible and we are being respectful, but we have to do only what we

are able to do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this government would not know anything about

fiscal responsibility if it came up and whacked them up the side of the head!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The courts of this Province - I am not going to stand here

and be lectured by anyone on that side when the courts of this Province have

judged you and your cronies to be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - to be the criminal actions that you have taken place that

caused the public Treasury of this Province in excess on $65 million! Let me ask

this question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province are asking the

following questions and I am asking them on their behalf today. Why is it that

negotiations were left to the last minute before we could get a resolution? Why

was it left one week - before this government put a final offer on? Why is it?

The people are asking. Why is it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Why is it that we are so close, and instead of using the

type of language and getting down, rolling up your sleeves, this Premier goes

out and uses the intimidation tactics, the bullying tactics that will not end

this strike? The public are asking that question, Premier. Do you care to answer

that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that after these number of

days in the House that we have gone back to the very same question that was

asked here. This is very important because every single individual in this

Province, NAPE member, CUPE member or otherwise, were well aware of government's

original offer; and we have made that clear. Everybody understands it. If that

is the best that this member opposite can do to try to get an agreement is ask

why we did not do something three weeks ago, shows that collective agreements

and negotiations happened in the eleventh hour. We put an offer moving from a 9

per cent offer to a 13 per cent offer, in terms of our ability to pay and in

terms of being respectful of our employees and of the people of this Province.

Also, Mr. Speaker, while they are shouting and heckling about increasing the

deficit, we will not go there because we have too much responsibility to our own

employees and to the rest of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here - this is the question,

the fundamental question that people are asking - what is at stake here is this

government's ability to negotiate on any issue.

I would like to ask the Premier this question: Does he believe that walking

outside this Legislature, going before the cameras and talking about

back-to-work legislation is going to end the strike? Does he believe that

telling the people of Marystown, in his ability to negotiate, that civil

disobedience is the answer to getting back the shipyard? Premier, will you stand

up and answer to what people are telling me, that the confidence in you and your

government is gone? How is it that you cannot negotiate fairly, equitably and

reasonably on behalf of the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that the hon. puppet forgot to put in the last part of the

question from the puppet master, which is, on the eve of the convention, with

the rest of the little lead-in he was also supposed to say: and call an

election. You forgot that part. You are forgetting your lines. You are beginning

to forget your lines. Maybe it is time to let the other fellow take over the

party.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the two issues raised. In Newfoundland and

Labrador, I have always believed that the people respect anyone who will talk

directly and openly about the issues. In front of the TV cameras and the media

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the government was not contemplating

back-to-work legislation. That is what I told the people of the Province, Mr.

Speaker. That is exactly what I told the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker,

that we are not contemplating it. However, I also said, just like, not those

members opposite but those that support the same party, did, at certain points

in history when the public interest became jeopardized and compromised to the

point that the government had to act, that group, when they were the government,

Mr. Speaker, brought in back-to-work legislation if it was necessary. We are not

contemplating it, and it is a matter of not using it as an intimidation tactic.

Everybody who is out on the line picketing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone of them understands that at some point, if the health and safety of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is jeopardized - because we have to understand

and believe that these 19,000 workers are very valuable, and that it is more

difficult to provide services without them than it is with them; that at some

point we might need them back and we might have to legislate but we are not

contemplating it today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not who writes my questions that people are laughing

and wondering about today, it is who is advising and scripting your answers,

Premier. That is what is at stake today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question. Yesterday, publically, he

talked about the Marystown Shipyard deal and it goes to this government's

ability to negotiate on any issue. He talked about: that's history. No wonder

it is history, Mr. Speaker. Isn't it true that had you and your government put

one tiny line into a contract saying that if that company had gone bankrupt,

that the assets would revert back to the Crown? If that line was there, would

you be musing publically about civil disobedience or would government have

protected the people's interests of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I am glad the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition,

raised the issue because the future of the Marystown Shipyard is very important

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only for the Burin Peninsula

and the Marystown area but for everybody in the Province.

The Opposition, maybe, is conveniently now forgetting that an attempt to put

that kind of a line into an agreement several years ago led to no agreement at a

point in time when nobody wanted the yard. In fact, the deal that was reached,

the agreement that was reached - and one of the biggest groups in making it

successful in knowing every line that was or was not in it, because it was the

best possible deal that could have been gotten at the time, were the unions that

were involved. They gave great concessions and put a lot of work into jointly

working at this agreement so that we could save the yard at that time. To

suggest now that somebody could have put a different line in - if the line could

have gone in and there would have been a sale, it would have gone in. There was

no sale to be had. We cannot go back and redo history. That is the past. We are

focusing with our administration on looking at the future and trying to secure

work for Marystown on a day-to-day basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, would anybody in this Province, after

listening to that answer, buy a used car from that Premier? Unbelievable! He

just stood up and admitted that in negotiating the sale of Marystown Shipyard he

forgot to protect the public's interests, and in the process, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador! That is what he forgot!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do apologize for raising a point of order

in Question Period. I recognize it is not normal but, Mr. Speaker, the comment

that was just made by the Leader of the Opposition in no way reflects anything

that I just said or have ever said with respect to this issue. I do not know who

he is listening to today, but it is certainly not me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If I really want to know what he is going to say on any

particular issue I am going to have to follow him outside the House and stand by

the cameras and listen to him because what he says out there and what he says in

here are two different things!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He likes to talk about history. The only thing that is

going to be history is him after the next general election!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: What is it? What is it that

you are going to do in the next several days to resolve an impasse that is so

minute to restore public confidence, to restore public services for the people

of the Province? Tell us what your remedy is, Premier, to put public services

and people back to work on the streets of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think the representation just made by the

Leader of the Opposition shows exactly how indifferent he is about the

possibility of getting a solution. He knows, because he does have some union

background, that if I were to do what he just said, if I were to stand up here

now, as the Premier of the Province, and say out loud and dictate to the unions,

to the 19,000 public servants, what the remedy is and what I insist the answer

should be before they come back to work, I would be condemned not only by him,

but by 19,000 people, and the rest of the people of the Province, because I

should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier what measures was he going

to take and what was he going to do to resolve this strike. I didn't ask him

about dictating. Stand up and (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will gladly answer the question, because now -

MR. E. BYRNE: Answer the question in here, not out there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Answer it here, for the record of the House!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Opposition is either getting a little

excited or maybe getting a little bit disappointed about what is going to happen

the weekend, when he gives up at least one part of his job, because he is

beginning now to get so excited in this particular exchange that he is

forgetting even the question he asked.

Mr. Speaker, the question he asked - because words are important - was not,

what are you going to do about it, he said: Would the Premier stand up and tell

the people of the Province what the remedy is? That is the question he asked. He

didn't say, what are you going to do about it. He said: Stand up and tell the

people of the Province what the remedy is. The remedy, Mr. Speaker, is going to

be worked out and negotiated because we are in a legal strike position and we

respect the right of the unions to speak on behalf of their members. It is going

to be negotiated with the representatives of the unions, and it is not for me to

dictate what the remedy is, or to stand in the House and say what the remedy is.

We are going to try everything possible to negotiate an agreed to settlement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary.

Two questions for the Premier: When are you going to realize that it is not a

dollar store you are running, but the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador;

and, the second question: When is it, Premier, that you are going to realize

that in the last two months you have misspoke, misread, misunderstood and

mismanaged the public confidence in how you are running the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. I want to say to him first, I took him at his

word yesterday, and I went to talk to the President of NAPE about the positions

taken by the Premier, and he has released the Premier to talk back. The position

of NAPE and CUPE is that their original position of 8-8-8 was very reasonable

based on the loss of income over the last dozen years through inflation, but

that they compromised, Mr. Speaker, first at 19 per cent and then at 5-5-5.

Will the Premier acknowledge that the only position taken by his government,

aside from the 5-4-4 was the one that he made on the radio Tuesday morning, that

was repeated at the meeting with the President of NAPE? Will he acknowledge

that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, while Mr. Hanlon may have released us, we have given our word that we

will try to find a negotiated agreement to this outstanding strike, because it

is a very serious one. We have - and I will say it publicly - responded to each

offer and we have also made a number of counteroffers to NAPE and CUPE to try to

address their issues. But, Mr. Speaker, the offer we have on the table is not

about being mean-spirited or not wanting to do it, it is about being able to

afford to do it.

I really question the commentary and questioning from the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, who would suggest that an 8-8-8 is reasonable, just knowing our

budgetary situation and what we have just come through. It is shocking, Mr.

Speaker, shocking!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has taken the position, along with the Minister of Finance, that

the position of the Province financially is they cannot handle this matter. Can

the Premier tell us what the fiscal advantage there is in terms of our borrowing

commitments and the interest rates we get? What is the advantage of having

resolved the long outstanding unfunded liability in the public sector pensions?

What will that do to increase and improve the fiscal ability of this Province?

Has the Premier taken that into account in discussing with the public sector

unions how they can resolve this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is suggesting that

the markets are not aware of our unfunded liability for our pension plan, that

is certainly not accurate. In fact, they have factored it in. They factored it

into our credit rating. But, Mr. Speaker, we have said very clearly, the basis

and rationale from our moving from 9 per cent to 13 per cent was based on the

fact of a number of outstanding issues that we all know: (

a) we know that our

equalization will be less next year; (

b) the cap on equalization is gone now

which will negatively affect our ability to raise revenue from the federal

government. The Canadian economy is something that is very iffy right now. The

US economy is under watch. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be responsible and know

because this is important -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This is very important because we want to be able to

provide the money that we have committed in a sustained way. We do not want to

go back to the 1990s.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We want to make sure we have it; and members opposite

know the state of our books. They know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier, since he appears to be the weakest link over

there. I ask the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Premier acknowledged yesterday that

Friede Goldman may be forced into filing for bankruptcy protection within days.

I ask the Premier: What affect will the financial situation of Friede Goldman

have on their plans to build two offshore tugs at Marystown for the merchant

fleet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Jack, are you still on miss a lunch?

Let me say to my friend from Bonavista North that this is indeed a somewhat -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. TULK: Skip a lunch was it? He is skipping every lunch.

Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat serious matter for the people of Marystown.

Obviously, the people down there are frustrated as they see no work in the

shipyard, as they see their skills and their people leave the area and have to

go to other places to find work and indeed, some of them cannot find work within

their own area.

We have been working with the people in Marystown and the union down there

trying to see what can be done. I would, frankly, hope - as I am sure the hon.

member would - that whatever projects we are trying to get underway in

Marystown, that whatever the situation is with Friede Goldman today will not

affect, in the sense of a downturn, but indeed would see that whatever happens

in Marystown is for the good of the people in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, not only is Friede Goldman near bankruptcy, but it

used the assets at Marystown and Cow Head as collateral for a loan, not to

finance work at Marystown but to pay for work it is doing in the United States.

There is a very high risk now that Friede Goldman creditors will seize and

dismantle all of the assets at Marystown and Cow Head and obliterate the

economic base of much of the Burin Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister: How could his government have been so

stupid to allow millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and hundreds of jobs

to be put in jeopardy in the rural areas of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is very good at playing

alarmist. I say to him, yes, Friede Goldman is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He is at it again.

Friede Goldman is having some difficulty at this time, yes - we admit that -

but I would say to him not to try to raise the bar to the height where he helps

the situation deteriorate from what it is now. I would ask him not to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Let me also say to him that, besides being very good at being

an alarmist, he has great 20/20 hindsight. He knows, and everybody in this

Province knows -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: He knows that everybody in this Province, including the union

at the time, I think the mayor at the time, the government at the time, said

this was the best deal that was possible under the circumstances that Marystown

found themselves in at the time.

Mr. Speaker, we will work with the people of Marystown to try and ensure that

the shipyard becomes the success it once was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, again I apologize if I am incorrect, but during

Question Period today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in trying to

discredit some of the statements made by the Premier, used the line, I believe,

pointing his finger at the Premier, pushing his finger through the air, and

saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to hon. members opposite, in ruling on an unparliamentary manner, the

gesture of the body is as important as what is spoken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the Leader of the Opposition

say, after trying to discredit the remarks - I am concerned about decorum. I do

not know about the hon. gentlemen opposite. I am concerned about following the

rules. That is the only way Parliament works. We are all obligated to follow the

rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to let the Government House Leader present his point

of order.

MR. LUSH: In trying to discredit the comments made the Premier, the

Leader of the Opposition looked at the Premier and said: Would anybody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Jabbing the air with his finger, asked - and this is the

important point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Government House Leader now to get to his point of order.

MR. LUSH: He asked: Would anyone buy a used car (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: The hon. gentlemen can laugh, they can try to be derisive, but

I would suggest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will call for order one more time. If we don't have order and

decorum here, the Chair will recess the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to hon. members, that is an

attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to do through the back door what he

cannot do through the front door. Everybody is aware of the connotations of that

particular expression, and they are not very honourable connotations. They

suggest dishonesty, a cheat -

AN HON. MEMBER: A liar.

MR. LUSH: - a liar. Those are the connotations of that particular

expression, Mr. Speaker, and I would not want to see that used as a regular

expression in this House, on either side of the House, by any member. I ask Your

Honour to rule, to look at that in the context that I would suggest that it is

unparliamentary in every sense of the word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to call the Premier any of the

terms that the Government House Leader stated, I would do it through the front

door, not through the back door, I say to the Government House Leader!

Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to rule, too -

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I would. I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, since when is

jabbing the air with your finger unparliamentary? I will say to the Premier, I

used the correct finger when I spoke to the Premier, the correct one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It was pointing to him, because my questions were directed

at him, nobody else.

I submit to you that the point of order that the Government House Leader has

put before you for your decision, for your decision to rule on and reflect upon,

is nothing more than a parliamentary prank to draw attention away from the real

issues that were debated and discussed in this House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised under advisement.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

I would like to table the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation Annual Report for

the year 2000.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Pre-Paid Funeral Services

Act." (Bill 5)

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present the second part, I guess, of a petition that has been

circulated in the Province for some weeks now. The prayer of the petition is as

follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland,

Canada;

WHEREAS the Provincial Library Board permits the viewing of pornographic,

violent, degrading behaviors by way to the Internet to patrons nineteen years of

age or over in areas where children are exposed to unsuitable material; and

WHEREAS we do not wish our tax dollars to be spent in this manner, we call

upon the House to request government to introduce legislation to protect our

children from exposure to this material.

Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago, on March 15, I presented this petition because

it had been signed at that time by about 500 residents of this Province. Today,

I have about 2,000 residents who have signed this petition. I have discussed it

with the Minister of Justice. This petition is signed by residents from all

parts of the Province, from Central Newfoundland, from St. John's, from

Labrador, to the South Coast, to the West Coast.

The prayer of this petition is not that these people want to say anything

that is negative about the Library Board. They are very supportive of libraries;

however, the people who signed this petition did not want it to interfere with

the good work of the Library Board and the good work that they are doing in many

communities. They also want to point out that the viewing of material that is

inappropriate in libraries, because they are hooked up to the Internet, and the

possibility that young children may be exposed to these pornographic and violent

behaviors, is totally repugnant to these residents of our Province.

What the petitioners want the House to do is to look at the way in which our

Library Boards are operated. They want to say to the House that they want to

support the libraries. They want their children to go to the libraries. They

want them to go there for all the right reasons. They feel that their children

should feel comfortable, should feel welcome, should feel save, and should feel

that they are in a morally and conducive environment. They feel the present

situation where children can see pornographic material in a library to be

totally unacceptable to these people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: They feel that the government should try to do something

to address the situation.

Mr. Speaker, this petition I present is signed by over 2,000 residents of our

Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting Petroleum Products," carried. (Bill 4)

On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

I believe the hon. the Opposition House Leader adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to continue some of my comments on the Budget. It is a document

that I have said does not really lay out in a direct manner the true financial

picture of our Province over all. Well, it does jumble around a few figures; it

does carry $196.8 million from last year's revenues and put them into this

year's revenues. You do a little bit of jostling. Most of that is in the

sinking fund, but there is a good chunk of it in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

also, that is carried forth.

I started off the last day - I spent most of my time on Tuesday talking about

basically economic growth, the deficit, the debt, and some of the things here in

our Province. I might add that, you know, in striking a budget it is important

to strike a balance between your deficit - your total debt, of course, is a

factor. It is an accumulation of deficits, what a total debt is, and to strike a

balance between providing services to our Province to be able to fund our basic

social programs on a fair level - education and health, social services or human

resources, we call it, an employment area now - and to be able to balance our

borrowing on the market, what the cost is of borrowing, and to try to meet our

debt, and we are in the vicinity of between $500 million and $600 million now.

It is a fair chunk of money to service a debt, and that is one of the realities

we have to face.

The last day I talked about some of the aspects, and just touched briefly on

what is happening at the federal level in terms, and I made reference to it. I

think the Finance Minister agrees on this one. You were quoted in the media as

agreeing that the solution to solving some of our problems here is a combination

of two things. We must have policies that are going to grow the economy of our

Province in proportion to growth in GDP. Now GDP growth does not always equate

to a corresponding proportionate growth within the economy and jobs and

provincial source of revenue. We have to have an ability to grow the economy so

that we can generate an increase in our own sources of revenues. Granted, we

have made increases as the economy grows. We have increased in our intake on

personal income tax; and, of course, this year we will see the benefits of a

reduction there, because our economy has responded to a certain level and there

is going to be a break back in the pockets of taxpayers under that particular

level of personal income tax. We do also see the economy growing. There is a

little area to be concerned, to a degree, because we are seeing significant

increases over the past period of time in our consumption taxes, and

particularly we are seeing a tremendous amount of money - this year we are going

to take in $100 million in revenue from liquor in the Province. We are going to

take in seventy-some million dollars in tobacco tax. In lottery taxes we are

taking in the vicinity of $100 million.

I have said it before, that this Province put into solving and putting money

towards gambling addictions, that is becoming a very serious problem. We are

allocating something like $160,000, I believe, into dealing with problems

associated with gambling addiction, and we take $100 million in revenues. I am

sure most people in this House here are familiar with some people who have gone

through very difficult times with gambling addictions. I called for, last year,

an increase at setting a limit, setting an amount that we should be putting

aside from gambling revenues to assist people who are in need, to be able to

deal with a promotion, to be able to do counseling. The figure I used, I said up

to 5 per cent. I did not say right today, because 5 per cent, you would be close

to $ 5 million. We just cannot dump money at the problem. It has to grow and

assist people in the process. If we started with just 2 per cent, that is $2

million compared to $160,000 we throw in today.

The beverage industry - I think it is called the soft drink bottling

association - I forget what the name is. It will probably come to me in a few

minutes, anyway. I am familiar with them, and I have talked to them on more than

one occasion over the past number of years, but they contribute an equal amount

to this government.

When you only put three-hundred and some thousand dollars between the

industry and government to deal with people dealing with those addictions, I

think we have to do something about it. I have spoken to people who have called

my office on many occasions. They have called the help line. They said, call

this other number. They could not get the assistance. They were told, at the

time, you have to be suicidal to be able to get intervention. In desperation,

they call: Can something be done? I want to deal with my problem. I cannot get

the help to deal with it.

When we are prepared to collect $100 million in revenues, when we go out and

look for $100 million - I will get the exact figure we are projecting here this

year; $99 million, that is pretty close to $100 million - $99 million in

revenue, we should be prepared to put a certain amount of that aside to deal

with the problems.

Can you imagine, $99 million in lottery revenues and $160,000 to deal with

addictions from gambling? It is not enough. We should increase it. There should

be a starting point of about 2 per cent. I have said, over a period of time -

because you just can't throw it all in the one time the same as we looked at

cancer research and Terry Fox. You don't take tens of millions and throw it in

a pot and get a cure for cancer. You have to build a structure, the

infrastructure, a base, and research. You can only move at certain speeds in

certain areas. When there are people out there who cannot get access and have to

wait months to access proper help there is something wrong. There is something

wrong to take it on one hand and not do something on the social end. I am not

saying we should not have it. I am not prepared to say we should not have

gambling at all, or we should have it. I guess that is an issue that would need

much debate. I am saying that if we are going to reap the benefits we also must

be able to allocate a certain amount of money towards the problems associated

with it.

With reference to the federal government, that is what I wanted to touch on

first. Just to give you an indication. What is happening to us in this Province

in terms of transfers? I said at the beginning, there are two areas to solve our

problems that I think we need to get this economy turned around in this

Province. Anyone who watched a program this week on CBC - the minister used the

same two things in independent interviews. The minister attributed the same

basic things that I felt are the answers. So, at least we are on the same

wavelength, that we have to get a growth in our economy, we have to get policies

that are going to work in our Province, and we also have to get the federal

government to realize that we are part of a federation, we are a part of

federalism, and we must depend on the federal government.

I am going to give you a comparison to other provinces, what they are getting

under Canada Health and Social Transfer between 2001 and in five years' time.

Let's look at our Province. Our Province - not counting this special amount

that was just put in. We are scheduled to get from $299 million - and there is

an extra amount just thrown into a special fund now, and that is for all

provinces. I will just stay away from that one. From $299 million to $364

million over the next five years. That is a 21.7 per cent increase that this

Province will get in Canada Health and Social Transfer. While our Province is

getting a 21.7 per cent increase under Canada Health and Social Transfer in the

next five years, Prince Edward Island is getting a 32 per cent increase; 28.8

per cent for Nova Scotia; New Brunswick, 28.5 per cent; Quebec, 24.4 per cent;

Ontario, 42.8 per cent increase; Manitoba, 30.8 per cent; Saskatchewan, 48.6 per

cent; Alberta, 48 per cent increase; and British Columbia, 35.5 per cent. We are

getting the smallest percentage increase of any province in Canada over the next

five years under the formula for Canada Health and Social Transfer.

Can you imagine, Alberta is getting a 48 per cent increase in payments to

help them with health, post-secondary education, and in the social services

area. Alberta is going to go from $1,290,000,000 to $1,909,000,000. We are

looking at $619 million more going to Alberta to assist them with their social

programs, and this Province here is going to see $65 million in that same period

of time.

Look at Ontario, 42.8 per cent. They are going from $5.2 billion to $7.5

billion; $2.3 billion more going into Ontario in the next five years to help

them meet their commitments to health care, education, social assistance, and

our Province is getting a pittance.

Even the minister said, in the Budget Speech, that our Province will get $93

million less this year than we got seven years ago. Can you imagine, take $93

million less just in that component, which is the smallest component of federal

transfers when you look at equalization. We are getting $93 million less than we

got seven years ago.

What would $93 million do today our there to solve this public service

strike? What would $93 million a year do? In fact, from the peak of $443

million, when you look at add-ons - it was $427 million. When you can point the

two programs -

MR. H. HODDER: Loyola, don't point your finger on the other side.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will point it on this side.

Four hundred and twenty-seven million. It went down to an all-time low of

about $272 million. In one fiscal year alone we got $155 million less than we

got back in the early 1990s, out of this economy; $155 million a year! Everybody

would be able to get a good hefty increase. We would be able to do programs and

services that we are not providing. We have been asleep at the switch. We have

allowed federalism to fail because we didn't stand up for it.

We had a premier who was here -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be pointing at me, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: You cannot see that in Hansard. No they cannot.

We have a Premier who looked after paving the way for an ambition at the cost

of this Province. That is not the proper way to go. When you look at the total

accumulation - can you imagine, from 2001-2006 there is going to be $5.5 billion

more money going into Canada Health and Social Transfers; $5.5 billion at the

end. That is what will be higher on the scale; what we will be seeing. Out of

that $5.5 billion we are getting $65 million. Do you know what Ontario is

getting out of that $5.5 billion extra, where it is going to peak at? Ontario is

going to be getting $2.2 billion extra. Between $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion

extra they are going to be getting in 5 years' time under Canada Health and

Social Transfers than they are getting today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a good point of humor there. I will not put it into

the record at this time, until we get on that topic a little later. I might get

to that topic. I like to keep my concerns focused.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, tell them you don't agree (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not agree with it at all, I say to the Member for

Baie Verte. I do not agree for a minute with it, but I do agree on one thing -

and I am sure the Member for Baie Verte agrees, and we all agree - that we are

only going to be getting a 21.7 per cent increase in CHST over the next 5 years

and Alberta is getting 48 per cent.

The ministers over there will agree that Ontario is going to be getting

between $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion more in 5 years' time at the end, in one

year alone, than they are getting now under Canada Health and Social Transfer.

We are getting a measly $65 million. Who needs it worse? Does Ontario need $2.3

billion worse than we need for health care? We have a ten-tier system in this

country. No wonder the federal government is feeling so guilty. They picked an

NDPer from Saskatchewan, a former Premier - who, by the way, is respected across

this country- who came from a Liberal coalition in Saskatchewan. We will not

hold that against him too much. They feel there must be something wrong with

medicare, something wrong with the services that we are getting in this country;

and there probably is.

What is an insured service? What should be an insured service? What should

not be an insured service? Ten or fifteen years ago what might have been an

insured service, today may not be considered to be an insured service, or there

are things that probably should be. So it is time to revisit and look at what

qualifies to meet these basic requirements. I hope that Roy Romanow and his

committee will do an effective job in dealing with this. While I am on that

topic too, the Minister of Health has indicated they are going to form a

committee to look at - in terms of health care.

The people in the public are very skeptical of government committees. We had

a committee of the House of Assembly before, one on children's interests,

which was looked at as a nonpartisan, non-political committee that went out and

reported to the House on an issue. It had a perception that something was being

done, that crossed party lines and did not draw on party allegiance. When

government commissions a committee, they go out, and it comes back to the

department and stays on a shelf. We tried to get information on that for two and

three years. The perception is out there: Look, it is only another report,

appointed by the minister, to go out and do this. A report to the minister, and

it does not have the impression that it has an impartiality to it.

Committees to the House are perceived to have an impartiality because we

represent different political parties; we come back and we report. It has at

least a certain amount - an aloofness from the partisan sector out there in the

House of Assembly, because we all have an opportunity to participate in the

process. We have done and gone through - I have sat on committees of the House.

Committees, I observed, have done very effective jobs in determining what the

problems are and filing reports here in the House. It does not matter what that

committee finds in health care or what they do, there is always going to be an

element of people out there who will believe that: Look it is just another

ministerial thing. It is another means to delay things, another means to slow

down, buy us a bit of time, get us through the next election, get us through

another couple of years, things might change by then. That is the impression a

lot of people have out in the public, and it should not be. We are elected with

specific parties. That is certainly one aspect. We may be elected to represent

different political parties, but we all represent the people of the Province. I

think everybody who represents a district in here believes and wants to serve

the best interests of people in that district. These people in the districts are

humans. People in my district are no better or no worse than individuals in

another district represented by a different party. They believe, and a lot of

people believe - Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How much longer? I only had an hour-and-a-half the last

day. I am just into the Budget today. I will take the day. I will speak for the

day. I have a lot of items to get through. I want to talk about all the areas of

this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Your last day? Well, I do not mind at all, in due course,

allowing leave and getting back to me if anybody wanted - I am acceptable to

having that done with leave of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are doing a good effort. I am very cooperative, as he

knows. We serve as opposite house leaders. He knows I am cooperative. I deal

with things. I am upfront and to the point. I will do anything, within reason,

to accommodate him. But, I do not want you to miss the wisdom of two or three

hours of important matters here that I might want to relate to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That was a good effort. If I thought you were going away

and you were not going to be back at the end of April I probably would sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would give you that for now. I think you deserve to

get a rousing sendoff. You have been around a long while. You made a good

contribution. I will not deny that. That is like the fox and the crow, is it?

The crow did not go for it this time anyway. I will get back to it. If you do

later on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, indeed you would. Before I get down out of here I want

to ask the Speaker for leave of the House to get back again. I know a little bit

about the rules of the game. I might not be any great expert, but I have a

general knowledge of them. I will give him an A for effort. I cannot give him an

A. I will give him a B for effort, I should say, in this case. I will not give

him an unqualified A there, in that case.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, he tried that but

I did not bite. It was a good ploy there. I would have gotten it on the record,

I said to him, that I wanted leave.

Does the minister know that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That was a good idea. That was of benefit to you.

Did you know that Ontario is going to get between $2.2 billion and $2.3

billion more at the end of 2006 than they are getting now under Canada Health

and Social Transfers? A 43 per cent increase, and we are getting only a 21.7 per

cent increase. Alberta is getting 48 per cent; oil rich Alberta. Shameful!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is.

Alberta might not have any debt. Does that have to do with the party that is

running it out there or just the individuals who are heading up the party? They

used to do a clawback. I believe back in 1905 Alberta joined our great nation.

When did they change in Alberta; 1925, 1935 or something?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) conservative.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the conservative element in Alberta out there, I

think.

MR. TULK: No, in the Liberal Party in Ottawa (inaudible) Paul Martin.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, well, he is in there.

MR. TULK: We are going to have a Liberal (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Are we? Well, I hope he is more generous to Newfoundland

than he was when he was here. I hope he is more generous than he was in the five

years he was here. When he was in Ottawa before, we lost the Canada Health and

Social Transfer, the per capita basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but on this per capita - Roy Romanow is heading up this

committee. We have to start looking at the equal opportunities among Canadians

to have reasonable access to medical services standardized. What qualifies in

one province, what qualifies in one service as insurable and what is in another

province that is insurable - I think, if we are going to espouse to a common

system in this country, we have to have certain minimum standards we are going

to accept and certain things to comply with. It is not consistent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe we might. I am prepared to pass my views on to

anybody who might be willing to listen to them and take what is good out of it

and benefit. We have a ten-tiered system in the country now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How should we fund it out of the CHST? I ask the finance

critic, how CHST should address more equitably medicare in this country. That is

what nature, I think, we should look at; not just what is in and what is out,

the funding.

I did not look at the terms of reference, other than to just hear it here in

the news. I would certainly be interested in seeing - I guess that will filter

down to us, the terms of reference of Roy Romanow's committee, and what the

mandate is there. We need to -

MR. E. BYRNE: He speculated yesterday that he hopes and he believes that

the recommendations he will obtain will be implemented carte blanche by the

government. That is what Roy Romanow said yesterday.

MR. SULLIVAN: What he indicated is that he hopes his recommendations will

be implemented carte blanche by the government.

I just finished speaking here a few minutes ago on committees that are

appointed. I think the Department of Health is going to have one that is going

to look at health care and the overall structure. With committees that come from

departments, people have a tendency to think they file reports and throw them on

a shelf, and they do not get any particular attention. I have a list of reports

up in my office. I am almost running out of space up there. I am going to have

to look for a bigger office; I have so many reports on health care and

everything else up there that are lying on shelves somewhere. I do not know if

they are on the bottom shelf. They have not been found. They have not been

implemented. Recent reports, numerous ones, more recent - they have done more

reports on long-term care. They did one about twenty years ago out in

Clarenville on long-term care. It is still out there today, looking at the

long-term care facility. The wheels of bureaucracy turn so slowly that there is

a whole new set of circumstances arise by the time they get their turn, to any

particular degree. That is one of the biggest problems with reports.

Now, it is not acceptable that we are going to be seeing our Province -

looking under how CHST is carved up. We have to look, first of all, when you are

funding health care and education, you have to look at cost of delivery,

infrastructure. I mean we do not have dozens of universities in our Province.

Some of the smaller provinces have more universities. We are sort of centralized

on one university and, of course, other campuses, and a major portion of it on

the West Coast in Corner Brook and other smaller ones in different parts of the

Province. Lots of other universities around Atlantic Canada are competing.

In terms of the number of structures, we are not certainly overextended in

terms of education delivery. We have been addressing the health care facilities

in terms of trying to get some centralization and consolidation in that, but we

have to look at the cost of delivery. The geography of the Province should be

factored into the Canada Health and Social Transfer amount. We should look at

certain minimum levels based on our population, and it should be reviewed in

periods of every whatever, every five years, so it reflects census changes.

I think we should look at - there was a census in 1991, 1996, and 2001.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a census again this year, yes, every five years.

We should be looking at populations built in; plus, we should be looking at

another factor that looks at the geography - the cost of delivery per capita. If

the cost of delivery of service per capita in Newfoundland is at 100 per cent,

if we are the highest, let's say at 100 per cent we are the most expensive, if

another one is the easiest, it could be at 60 per cent of that, wherever it

falls into that range, or whatever scale you want to use, whether it is

numerically or percentage wise, we should structure a certain basic part of that

Canada Health and Social Transfer to reflect the cost to deliver at a per capita

level. Then, once we get to that level, once we get beyond the basic minimum

amounts of delivery on the geographical levels, once we eliminate geography into

the equation, then you could fund it on a per capita basis and it would have

some significance.

We have not done that in the Canada Health and Social Transfer. We have

thrown it in on a per capita basis. That is why we are only getting a 21.7 per

cent increase, the lowest increase of any province in the country over the next

five years. When you accumulate what we were going to do from back in 1994-1995

until 2006, over that period we will have lost almost $1 billion in this little

item alone to our Province.

Can anybody imagine what $1 billion would do to our Province now, in the

coffers of our Province. One billion dollars would have done tremendously. It

would have taken one-seventh of the total public sector debt off the books.

One-seventh of that would be close to $100 million - $70 million or $80 million

extra in interest we wouldn't have to pay. What would that do every year, $70

million or $80 million, to meet ongoing needs? It would be very significant.

We have to look at a structure. The Canada Health and Social Transfer, there

are other numerous variations, suggestions, and things that should be looked at,

and some of the things in our Province. I am not sure what we have done other

than a little meeting with the ministers every now and then, when we say we have

to take on those feds now and get this changed. What is done at a concrete

presentation level, I haven't things. I guess we are not privy to that anyway.

I am sure something is taking place and going on. I imagine that. If not, I

would be very surprised if the minister hasn't spearheaded detailed

presentations of our case to show where we stand. Canada Health and Social

Transfer is only one aspect.

How many people think that we are better off today? If you think we are

better off today in terms of Canadian population, after three years of economic

growth, than we are going to be in five years time under the current trends, you

are going to be sadly mistaken because we are going to see significant increases

to other provinces and much more modest increases to our Province. It is just

not going to happen.

As everybody is aware, we had the Canada Health and Social Transfer changed

about six years ago. It eliminated two previous programs and rolled it into one

program where it is funded on that basis. At least one thing about the previous

program, while there were improvements that could have been made on it, it did

look at a need basis. It did fund 50 per cent more on a need basis.

We have great needs out there in health, post-secondary education, and people

who are on social assistance, because of a downturn in the economy, a depressed

economy. There are people in rural Newfoundland today who cannot get a job, they

don't have the sufficient education levels to move out of the Province. With

the motorium shut down, it has devastated rural Newfoundland. They don't have

sufficient education to be able to go out and get a reasonable paying job

elsewhere. They are too old to get hired in a lot of the oil industries in

Alberta. When you are in your fifties, you are betwixt and between. You are at a

point where you are at an age - and you don't have an education to sell out

and move. You are at the point where you may own your own home, and it is

cheaper to stay at home even if you have to resort to social assistance.

There are some of the realities that are happening out there today in our

Province. We have to look at addressing this.

We talked about programs to address people who have lost their jobs in the

fishery. We had an opportunity for people in their fifties to be able to retire

with a little bit of dignity and this government, with one of the former

premiers, said: No, if you are not fifty-five, you don't retire.

People could have thirty years. Most people in the industry, at fifty years

of age at the time, and fifty-four years of age, people who were in their

fifties went fishing when they were fifteen, sixteen and seventeen. Some of them

had up to thirty-five years in the industry when the moratorium occurred; up to

thirty-five years in the industry and they could not retire. They missed

retirement. What does a fifty-four-year-old do with a Grade 6, Grade 7, or a

Grade 8 education, or even with a high school education at fifty-four and you

haven't been in school for thirty-five years? What do you do? Where do you go

for a job? I tell you, there are not many places to go for a job. There are very

few. I have seen it, I have experienced it. I went through dealing with people

in my district and other members in other districts. I know members on the

government side who were in the House at that period of time and, since that,

they have been seeing the effects of that devastation on our Province.

Our economy of the Province has not prospered from the fishery. Our total

sales, in dollar value, has increased. Our employment levels have decreased

considerably in the fishing industry. When employment levels decrease

considerably, it means your income to these people decreases, our taxation

decreases If you could have somebody who worked at fifty weeks a year, or a

year-round job, contributing to our personal income tax, they would have more to

invest back into sales, more money filtered back into our economy, whether it is

in some of the other consumption taxes, whether it was liquor tax, tobacco,

lottery tax, whatever the case may be, whatever tax it was, fuel taxes and so

on. The more they make, the more they travel, the more gasoline, the more

revenues in the government. It all goes through the economy. It all circulates

through the economy.

When you look at the Province, if we spent, like the minister talked about

earlier, we can put $50 million in the public service. Well, that is $50

million, of course, yes, into salary increases. When you look at the $50

million, we are getting back our 10.6-some per cent - ten point - on personal

income tax. That is the lower level of taxation. We are getting back all of

that, I might add. We are getting back a significant portion just in direct

income tax, and we are getting back other amounts through other taxes. When the

real amount of money that we are getting in the economy as a result of that - I

think 10.66 per cent is the lowest tax bracket, or 10.56 per cent, in that range

- we are getting back 10 per cent. Technically we are getting back 10 per cent

of that in taxes. Ten per cent of $50 million, so that is down to $45 million.

We are getting some back on all other taxes, so really the net cost to the

government, you are looking on a $50 million expenditure, it is only about

thirty-some million dollars.

We had that opportunity under a federal program at the time, in 1992, when

the federal program NCARP was announced, the federal government were willing at

the time to entertain anybody who was fifty in the fishery to be able to retire;

and the net cost to this Province, when you look at tax and that, was down to

about a fifteen-cent dollar, because it was a 70-30 program in the beginning.

When you looked at what the Province would cost, that is what it came down to,

and this Province said: No, we cannot do it for fishery workers; we will have to

do it for all workers in the Province.

There is a certain amount of that - when you get attrition or a small sector

of an industry, it is one thing. When you have a industry that is affected by

40,000 people out in an industry, that is a different story. That is a very

large contributor to our provincial economy.

Basically, we have to look at improving our provincial revenues, expanding

our economy here in the Province. How do you get more taxation without driving

taxes up in per cent? How do you get more taxation without increasing the burden

to individuals? Well, there is a way to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there is a way to do it without driving up taxes. You

have policies that create jobs and expand the economy and have more people

contributing, and therefore the costs are less.

We see in rural Newfoundland today, the reverse is happening. The people are

gone out of communities in rural Newfoundland. One community in my district has

50 per cent of the people we had there ten years ago; 50 per cent of the people

trying to pay taxes to keep a community infrastructure going. Other ones have 20

per cent reductions. Up on the Northern Peninsula, for example, up in those

areas, it is one of the most devastated areas up along the coast in those areas

because of a downturn in the fishery. We have seen it in other pockets around

the Province. From Trepassey, for example, to other areas, there has been

devastation - the South Coast, you name it. There is hardly an area of the

Province untouched. We have seen areas along the South Coast that do not have

access to other types of industries to be able to keep their economies going

from the Burgeos, the Rameas, the Gaultois', the Harbour Bretons, and all

around those areas there. They are very heavily dependent areas on the fishery

over the years and their alternatives to keep these economies moving are not as

great, and we have to look at an increase, an increase in encouraging investment

in these areas.

I just read in the paper today - I was much aware of it all along - that the

federal government, HRDC were going to be turning back money that they did not

use here this year. They turned back money to Ottawa in the Budget, money they

did spend in the year, to go out and assist different enterprises, businesses

and other areas in various proposals. I think a lot of that came from the scare

there last year, as Preston Manning called it, the $1 billion boondoggle. I

guess there was so much fear went through departments, so much scrutiny, so much

analysis and auditing, they never even got to spend the money that was allocated

to them this year, in this Province. I am sure if projects cannot be identified

to use, it is no sense in just throwing it to the wind. I do not agree with that

philosophy. There has to be a certain benefit that someone is going to get

because of that. That is the certain factor.

We have not had significant economic growth. We have had growth in this

Province. Its percent and its effect on the Province has become somewhat skewed

or distorted because the population of the greater St. John's area - St. John's,

Mt. Pearl, the East End, CBS and those areas, all the outlying areas around the

Province - growth has not been too bad. Unemployment levels have been reasonably

low in these areas but they are not reflective of the rest of the Province. As

more people move in here and the populations come in, the overall average does

not reflect the extremities that you are getting in many of the rural

communities around the Province. We do not really get to see those extremities.

One of the areas I said we had to change and look at addressing was the

Canada Health and Social Transfer. I talked a little bit about that but there is

another area too I think we need to look at: equalization. There are

thirty-three basic categories of equalization and each one is looked at in terms

of our ability to raise our revenues of taxation compared to other provinces, on

our resources. It is categorized in each of these areas. You may have -

MR. FITZGERALD: Beaton, you are not very comfortable here are you?

MR. SULLIVAN: In some of these areas you may have a clawback of 80 per

cent. In the mining sector; 70 per cent in offshore oil. That is an area we have

to move in pretty quickly and aggressively. We should be continuously hammering

on that subject; continuously hammering on what should be done to get a better

cut of the equalization. We have suffered immensely because of clawbacks. We are

not allowing our economy to retain the money we are getting in royalties in the

offshore. Right now it is not so significant. Do you think when we only got $40

million last year in offshore oil royalties - they clawed back twenty-eight.

What about when we are getting $500 million, $600 million and $700 million, and

they are taking back $500 million on us? It is going to be tough now to say to

other provinces: look-

MR. FITZGERALD: That was a bad point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: What he meant, it was a point of order. Pardon the pun.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) friendly fire and a house fire.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a difference in what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Friendly fire and a house fire.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I liked the Member for Bonavista South's remark a

little earlier there when he talked about getting practice for his senatorial

position. I thought that was a good one.

Anyway, I was talking about equalization. Under equalization, we need to be

getting a fair share. Canada Health and Social Transfer, to my knowledge, is not

guaranteed. It is not constitutionally guaranteed, but equalization is. I did

not like the comment that was made by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Paul Martin or the Prime Minister made a comment. I

will get to that in a second.

During the last election, federally, they made the announcement that they

were going to eliminate the cap. They put a cap on equalization and decided to

lift it during the last election. They lifted the cap, for one year only,

2000-2001. So we got an extra $38 million. The cap is back on. This year we get

no - the cap is there. It does not matter what the equalization should be to

close the gap of the rest of the country. They never pay out more than, roughly,

$10 billion. Discrepancy could be so huge that we need $15 billion to come in

but you do not get it, or $11 billion, whatever the case maybe. The cap is on.

I heard either the Prime Minister or the Finance Minister saying - or Paul

Martin or Jean Chrtien, one of them said: we need the consent of the

provinces. Well, I say to them, we did not need the consent of the provinces in

1982 when we capped equalization why should we need the consent of the provinces

to lift it? We did not need the consent to lift it before the federal election.

We did not need the consent to put it on and we do not need the consent to do it

now; neither do we need consent to change the Canada Health and Social

Transfers. They cut the social transfer in 1994-1995 without the consent of the

provinces. They cut it against outrage from some of the provinces, but still

they cut it. They do not need unanimous consent of the provinces to put it back

where it was. They could do that with the stroke of a pen. In the Budget, the

federal government, with the stroke of a pen, could put back Canada Health and

Social Transfer. They do not need consent from the provinces. To tell us that we

cannot deal with inequities until 2004 is not acceptable. Something has to be

done about it.

I am almost up to page four now in th3 Budget Speech. There are only

thirty-two pages. Don't do the math on that, I say to the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

I was talking about it the last day. I just got off on a little tantrum. The

last day I was talking about the deficit last year. We did pretty good last

year. We came in $2 million better than we budgeted. We budgeted it to be $34.7

million and we came in at $32.7 million. I would say whoop-de-do on the Budget.

That was not the real deficit, of course. We know what is happening under the

cosmetics of a budget. You try to dress it up as best you can. Put a nice

document here that has the flow and has the little political jargons and little

terminology. That is part of politics. I do not have a problem with that, to be

honest with you. If you want to have language that is a little wordy and showy

and do things - that is just to put their literary skills to work. That is fine.

I do not have a major problem there, but when they put their creative accounting

skills to work, that is a different story.

The minister went on to say: "For the year just ending, we incurred

additional expenditures of $65 million including some year end

investments." In addition to what they had earmarked, they spent another

$65 million over and above what they had planned. Thirty million of that came

out of the Contingency Fund; so that left $35 million, I understand. The biggest

amount of that was health care equipment. I believe this year's budget

mentioned $32.4 million in diagnostic and other health care equipment; was the

major area. I could see an unforseen circumstance like the Innu. That was not

something that you could anticipate. That is legitimate in terms of fulfilling a

need. There is about $6.5 million there. That is something you could not

anticipate.

The MUN Opportunity Fund was an anticipated one. I do not know why we had an

extra expenditure like the MUN Opportunity Fund. I know we estimated how much

the university would raise. In other words, if they raised $3 million more than

we figured they would raise. I guess that is where the $3 million must have come

from. The Education Investment Corporation, I think another $4 million went into

that. Student opportunities, this particular investment fund for students, a

couple of million. For fuel price increases there was an extra (inaudible) $4.8

million. That is an area that -

One of the ones here; this $100 rebate. I guess you are familiar with that. A

lot of people are familiar on getting the rebate for fuel. This fuel rebate -

and here is an interesting point. Maybe my colleague from Bonavista South, I

know he talked about - I will just mention this point anyway. Under the fuel

rebate, the $100 you are getting, that is based on your income for 1999. It is

not based on your income for 2000. I know people who were on TAGS. The program

ended in August of 1998. They give you a lump sum payment, if you are a member,

in September and one at the end of January. Because that payment came in

January, as a lump sum - there was $2,000 or $3000. That was in 1999, over two

years ago. Because of that, people cannot get that rebate of $100. People who

have very low incomes, almost on the lines of social services. It doesn't seem

right.

In fact, I think, if they put forth their 2000 income and said here it is for

2000, they should accept that. I think that is a fair statement. That is not

being too outlandish. Here is my tax return for 2000 which shows the income is

within the limit. Why are you going back to January 1999, when a payment was

made to finish the TAGS program? Some of them were going off the program in

February and March, and it would have been May anyway. Now that has gone against

their families, people on social assistance and low incomes. Before they went on

social assistance, for example, they had a little bit higher income because of a

TAGS lump sum thing; even if they had low income and were not on social

assistance. That is an area, I think, has inequity there. I think this

government should look it. They should say: Look, if your 2000 income is in that

range we will accept that, and give those poor families that extra $100. It is

significant, because a lot of families in this Province, in every district in

this Province I would say - I don't think there is one district untouched,

that does not have families who could use $100. People look at what they have to

pay on their light bill and a bit of food. They deprive their children of

clothing and everything else, delay trying to buy a few books and other things

because of a low income. I think we should look at that. It is not going to be a

big cost to the Province. A $100 cost on a rebate is something they should look

at. It may be something I can get to mention and address a little later.

There were other programs. I think job creation was a $6.6 million thing. In

a lot of areas in Newfoundland and Labrador short-term job creation is so

important this year. In the fishing industry this year there were so many people

who just did not get enough hours to qualify for EI. By having this short-term

job program it gave families that extra fifty or 100 hours which prevented them

from having to get money from human resources employment. It is pretty bad when

you have to work five months to get over 400 hours work. Work is pretty scarce

then. What happens if your husband happens to have a job, or the wife has a job

and the husband does not? You are not likely to move away when you own your own

house. You will work for as little as you can possibly survive on then. You will

take any job you can get, and with most of these jobs you cannot even qualify

for EI. I think that program should have served the benefits -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said to the minister before, if he wants me to give him

leave of the House, to sit down, I will let him speak as long as he wants to,

and then when he finishes I will get up and continue as long as I want.

I say to the minister, there are so many items on the Budget. I just opened

the Budget book. I opened the Budget book and started looking at it and

commenting. I am only on page five. Seriously, I haven't gotten to the

schedules, exhibits or statements, and there are thirty-two pages in it. At the

rate I am going it could be July before I get to address - this is significant.

This government had $3.9 billion worth of expenditure, and I think it needs

to be looked at. I intend to look at every single item under this Budget.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I just say to my colleague from Bonavista South, an

interesting point, this $100 rebate for people with low income, provincially.

MR. FITZGERALD: The fuel rebate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I just want to mention it while my colleague is there

because sometimes we discuss common interests within fishing districts. The $100

rebate - and the minister should probably tune in. I think he should do

something about this, because it is based on your 1999 income. Because people

got a final TAGS settlement - and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries would be

sympathetic to this. I am only just pointing to the Minister of Fisheries. Maybe

he can bring it up with his colleagues in Cabinet.

January of 1999 was the last TAGS payment and when they are getting that $100

fuel rebate - people on very low incomes now are looking at their 1999 income.

Because they got a lump sum payment of $2,000 or $3000 in January 1999, over two

years ago - when they sent in the forms this year to get the fuel rebate and

their income is only several thousand now, some of them, this year - last year

and even this year - they cannot get that $100 rebate because they had a TAGS

cheque in January of 1999 that distorted their income over two years ago. They

cannot get the $100. They are down to a poverty line of income now. I think

Cabinet should look at it and make an announcement. It would be a nice, grand

gesture out there to say: here is $100. If you present your tax return for 2000,

we will take your 2000 income rather than your 1999 income and look at it,

because that is way more current. You could have made a millions dollars in 1999

and you might be on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) individual case?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, that is what I am in the process of doing. It only

came to my attention when I got a call on it this morning. That is why I am

mentioning this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not. I am pursuing it. If you do it for one - if

the 2000 income is more current, why shouldn't you use the 2000 income? The

2000 year is over now, and by the end of April you have to file the income tax

anyway. We should use that, I think. It would not be a big expenditure.

I was mentioning a few other additional things. We spent $65 million last

year, that we did not budget. Now, how do you figure this one? We spent $65

million we did not budget, and we carried that as an expenditure, showed that

for last year. We took $30 million out of the contingency reserve fund and we

took $35 million, basically, we overspent, and had to get approvals for,

warrants. I think they were issued in special warrants. At the same time we took

$196.8 million of revenue from last year and we carried it forth into this year's

revenue, so we could have a Budget that looks a helluva lot better than it would

have looked - $196.8 dollars better looking than it would have looked. Last year's

budget would have shown a significantly less borrowing requirement and would

have shown an operating surplus by the way you do the books. It would have shown

an increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What they are doing is, they are trying to stay comfortable

to see what it is like on that side of the House because they figure they are

going to be doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Harris?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, Jack? I didn't see Jack. I don't accept any

responsibility for the Member of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, none whatsoever. He

wants to see what it is like on the government side. He wants to get comfortable

there, and the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne wants to get comfortable over

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) must have taken the long way around to get

here.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is going to great lengths to get a dinner invitation. I

don't know if he has gotten one yet. He is still working on it and he hasn't

gotten one yet. He is not even listening to me.

I thought I was going to get sidetracked there for awhile from this Budget,

and I was starting to get kind of worried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: When I stop listening to myself, I am going to sit down.

It is all on the Budget, Budget related.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who? The Member for Gander? The minister? The Minister of

Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Status of Women.

MR. SULLIVAN: And the Status of Women. That is kind of long. I will just

call you the Minister of Youth. The youthful minister, we will call her.

I have to get back to page 5. Here is what the minister said on page 5 of her

Budget Speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Finance, in her Budget Speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, it was a tremendous speech. She must have practiced

that for a long time. She said: This could have created a surplus for 2000-2001

of $164.1 million.

You know what she said? We could have had a surplus of $164.1 million last

year. I say to the Minister of Industry, we could have had a surplus of $164.1

million, but we carried it over this year to make this year look bad so we would

not have to do some of the things that we should be doing for this Province.

That is what they said.

On page 6 of the Budget here, I want to comment on several of the things she

said. Can you imagine, last year we could have had revenues of $196.8 million in

last year's budget, and the minister says she is going to take it and shift

it. That is the issue I got on in Question Period yesterday and the day before.

Why didn't you take that money last September and spend it last September or

October, get the wheels in motion, get the ball rolling, to spend money on

health care equipment, because there are people out there today who are

practically dying, some have, and others are in dire need of getting diagnostic

tests. MRIs: You would almost want a letter from the highest authority in the

world - you cannot even get a referral from your own doctor to get an MRI. You

have to go to a committee and they have to decide. You have to wait almost a

year in a routine case and you have to wait for months in emergency cases.

I had a call from a lady this morning - and I use this as an example - whose

family member was diagnosed with cancer in mid-March, who needs to have

treatment to reduce a tumor before they can operate, and cannot get to see a

doctor until June to get that done. Can you imagine that, three months to see a

doctor before you can get treatment to be able to operate? With cancer, that is

serious, that could be fatal in some cases.

Our health care system has collapsed, it is gone. There are things we need to

do to get it moving. We talked about some of those. I said, we need to scrap

those boards that we have out there. I allow I would get a lot of support over

there for that. I am sure I would. I am sure that is their secret agenda. It

wasn't their political agenda in the last election, but it was their secret

agenda. We have to look at streamlining. We can't have boards competing

against each other: I will give you this to come here to start, I will give you

this and this. We have to look at a collective arrangement to get professionals

here. We can't expect to have a whole team of professionals in every little

nook and corner of this Province, but we should expect to have a level of

service that is representative of the population in an area and the geographics

that are associated with having a service in a certain area.

Most people will agree that the medical services provided in their areas are

considerably lower than they were, in terms of numbers and capacity; not

necessarily in all. I think we have made some important advancements. There are

certain skilled people we have here. We do a lot of positive things in health

care, but we can't cater to enough people. We have bottlenecked the system in

so many areas we cannot access it. We can't move people through the turnstiles

of our system, of our hospitals.

I was in a hospital there yesterday and the day before, almost every day, to

visit people. There is one gentleman I spoke with who has been waiting weeks now

in a hospital bed to get into a nursing home in another part of the Province. I

won't get into specifics. I don't want to identify the individual or family.

He is just waiting and waiting, he is on a wait list. People are being kept for

weeks and months in hospitals until they can get an open bed in a nursing home.

That is not the function of an acute care system in this Province. That is the

role of a long-term care facility and a process in this Province.

We have studied it to death. I know, when I was health critic back in 1993, I

raised the issue of the long-term care facilities out in Clarenville area and on

the Bonavista Peninsula. I said, I think they had the oldest population in the

entire Province. That region had the oldest population in the entire Province.

There were so many reports done on that, from Nycum reports - there are so many

I have gone through I can't even recall what was in one report as opposed to

another.

In any event, you have to build your long-term care facilities not to where

it is politically expedient but to where the bulk of the population are going to

be able to utilize them, recognizing the fact that they have families in those

areas who can visit them, not put someone down in a nursing home on the Burin

Peninsula if they are from Central Newfoundland or the South Coast, but try to

have them within the areas where their families and friends can visit.

This gentleman I spoke with said: I am looking forward to getting back there

because at least all my friends are around. The man is an elderly man, well past

his retirement age, and who would love to get back. He said: At least my friends

and family will be able to come in. He hasn't got many family members left in

the Province, by the way. He said: I will be back where my friends can come in

to visit every day. It will give that person a quality of life, not to have to

sit there and just see a spouse or one of his kids, who are the only ones left

in the Province, I think, now. It gives a little quality there.

We shouldn't be looking at acute care institutions that are costing close

to $1,000 a day when someone can go to a nursing home that doesn't cost near

that amount. It costs significantly less in a nursing home bed than in a

hospital, and it costs significantly less in a personal care home than in a

nursing home. If someone does not need to be in a nursing home, a personal care

home will deliver a quality of service. I know many of them. I have been in

there. I have visited them, many in my district and elsewhere, and I have spoken

with people. There are a lot of those very well-kept homes that hardly can

operate on the budget they are given. They got a little increase this year, I

think, to push it up now to - it was $965. It has gone to about $1,000 a month,

I think, that it is going to be, basically.

Well, they get their old age pension and guaranteed supplement. That is

nine-hundred and some a month, so the subsidy in those homes just on that item

alone, not counting some of the supplies they gave, it is less than $100 for a

person who is getting a pension OAS and the GIS; and if they have a bit of

Canada Pension, pretty well most of them can almost pay for themselves, which

the majority do. In those homes is the cheapest way - they cannot afford, I can

tell you. They are on the verge of bankruptcy. They have gone through high

vacancy rates. They cannot afford to keep operating at the rate they are going.

Some have been sold. Some people are moving out. I get calls regularly and, in

speaking with people, their vacancies are up as high as 30 per cent and 40 per

cent in cases. Some of them are older homes and what government is moving now,

they are moving to give subsidies to clients rather than - I cannot say that is

wrong. I have never opposed that, but I am saying you cannot take all the

personal care homes that are now out in the Province that were around for awhile

and throw them to the wolves and say, we are going to go out now because someone

might want to go into a more modern home.

You cannot cut them loose. They built their businesses on mortgages,

basically, on signing a mortgage based upon a certain guaranteed subsidy that

government gives for those beds, that give you a priority in getting those beds

for people to go into. When you are given that guarantee by this government, you

have to honour those commitments. You have to level the playing field that

somebody who puts a new home out there does not adversely affect, because of a

subsidy that they mortgaged it on, one of the other ones. We are seeing a shift

there, and it is a long time coming. They have been talking three or four years,

but they have to address this topic sooner or later. It has to be dealt with. It

is a serious matter within our system. I know my colleague from CBS has a fair

number there, and Harbour Main-Whitbourne, I know, and myself, are representing

three districts that have a significant number of those homes along with - I

guess most members have at least one or more of these in their district, so that

is important.

You know, if we can deliver it cheaper but give people the quality, that is

important. There are things that have to be done to address that, and it is a

major concern. We have to look at the proper balance, long-term care. I know

most families are moving closer to St. John's now where the employment is.

Rural Newfoundland does not have the same numbers. We have to build our

long-term care facilities to deal with the future, not with the present needs.

It is important. We have to look at the shift in demographics there. We cannot

expect somebody down in Burgeo to have to go to a home in Central Newfoundland

and their family are all in that area. We have to have a certain amount within a

distance, within a region, that people can visit and at least maintain a quality

of life. Because a time is going to come, whether we like it or not, regardless

of what we do - unless you go out and pump money into every single community in

the Province and we cannot do that. That is not the answer. We cannot stop the

wheels of movement and growth and shifting demographics. Sometimes, if you get

on and you move and you plan with it, it is the quickest way rather than slowing

down the wheels. Sometimes you have to slow down the wheels in some instances to

be able to build something in those areas to sustain those areas and make an

extra effort. That is important.

This whole area of dealing with our seniors is becoming a major issue. We

have an increasing percentage of the population who are seniors. They are a

vastly forgotten people. They do not have many out there to stand up and speak

for them, I will tell you. These people are in their eighties, and some of them

in their nineties. They have toiled all their lives on behalf of people in the

Province, and they deserve a reasonable level of dignity. The cost to families

today with their parents and their loved ones is becoming enormous, not in the

direct medical cost but in the cost of transportation, of getting there to

visit, of having to stay overnight; of having to go further and further afield

to avail of services. Those out-of-pocket costs that you do not see, that are

not picked up by the system, are becoming increasing greater today. The person

who called me this morning and said: What do I do? Can you give me any advice?

I just made reference to it, and I will tell you what I indicated anyway. I

do not mind saying it here in the House. They said: What advice do you give to

someone who is diagnosed with cancer in two locations in the body, and needs to

have treatment to shrink it before they can operate but cannot see a doctor for

three months, from mid-March to mid-June? They cannot get in to see the

specialist for three months, was diagnosed and has it.

I suggested: Call the doctor, if you concerned and it is affecting you. If

not, go to - well, the cancer treatment foundation, through the clinic, is

funding for people if the service is not available here. If you have to get a

referral to go, if you cannot get it done in a safe period of time here, there

was a fund put aside. I know people are going to Cleveland, Ohio, on a regular

basis for a specific treatment. I am not sure if that is the case in this

instance. They are usually post-operative or whatever, but something needs to be

done.

You should not have to sit around three months knowing there is cancer in

your system and it has to be shrunk before they can operate. You should not have

to sit around in misery and agony for three months. Anybody who has been

associated with people - I know a relative of mine a year ago was diagnosed in

March, in her early forties, and two months later that person had died. I mean,

to tell someone three months before you can see a doctor, before we can start

doing a treatment, we are gone to dangerous levels. That is why money was put

in, and we should not have had to put in money to fly people to Cleveland, Ohio,

and a family member, and all costs covered. It is a necessity to do it. We

cannot have people waiting, but we should not have let it get to that point. We

should have the resources here. We have very proficient and skilled people here

in those areas in our Province, but we do not have enough of them. We have not

put enough of them here.

Just two years ago in the medical oncology field, every single one of the

three left the Province and went elsewhere to medical oncology. I know we

eventually got people back to replace them. One person went public and said, I

have a 60 per cent - there was the caseload there, gone and went public. One

went to Winnipeg. One went to, I think, Saskatchewan, and I think one went to

Halifax. I spoke with at least one of them. Two of them actually, I think, I

spoke with at the time. I just wanted to get an insight into what motivated or

what caused it. Most of these people do not want to go out in the public forum

and deal with this. They just want to - look, I have waited long enough. I just

cannot take it any more. The workload and the caseloads - I can get far more

money. I can get close to double the money with way less the hassle somewhere

else. I need to get out of here for my own health. Not just these doctors. I am

not referring specifically to these ones here, but that is part of the whole

equation. I need to get out of here. I have a family, in some cases, they say. I

have to get out for my own health. I do not need to be working all these long

hours and weekends, when I can go out to Saskatchewan and other parts of the

country, have a different quality of life, get paid way better, pay less taxes.

One person went away, and up to $12,000 to $14,000 less in taxes they are

paying by going to Ontario, with his salary, than they were paying here in our

Province. Just that item alone. We have lost some tremendous specialists in our

Province in the past three or four years. We have lost specialists that - look,

one went out of here to head up a child oncology unit at Western, in London,

Ontario, to head up a department. They left down here. A renowned person down

here, a Dr. Jardine, left here, and there are dozens. I can name dozens of them

in different fields. I have spoken to people in other fields. I mentioned this

case before. That is why I did not have any reluctance in mentioning that name

because I have raised the issue before on many occasions. Others I have spoken

with have gotten out of here, in areas where it was hard to get to see a

specialist. A lot more will be gone, let me tell you, because people in this

Province are some of the most competent in North America in their field but they

cannot go to other provinces because of the licences and so on to be able to

practice.

I know people who are some of the most competent in their field, who cannot

do that because they have to go through, I guess, the medical process and the

qualification, and that is another deterrent. When people come in here, they

sort of get held over a barrel on that. We have lost tremendous skills, and it

is not only in this Province but the rest of the country, and anybody who is

following it, Canada is losing in a similar way. Canada is losing skilled

doctors and other medical professionals down to the United States, and every

time that they move to the United States, it creates a vacuum somewhere else in

Canada that sucks the professionals out of this Province into those spots. The

more who move to the U.S., the more openings there are, and they are crying out

for certain skilled people. Only for we got the reclassification for some of our

health care professionals recently, we would have lost some other medical

professionals in numerous areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, we did it, but not when we should have done it. We

would not have lost Newfoundlanders who did not want to leave here, who were

torn between their family and going away to make a living to support their

families or pay back their student loans. That is when we did it. We did it when

it was too late. There are dozens of fields I could point out there with people

in the same category. The United States - what did Preston call it? The big

sucking sound heading south out of Canada. Every time you hear that sound,

almost like a toilet flush, there is a sound coming from Newfoundland

gravitating to other parts of Canada to fill all these vacancies with the big

enticing offers.

If Ontario and Saskatchewan and those areas lose them to the U.S., they are

eager to recruit and get people from here. I mean, a starting nurse in Alberta

today starts off at $49,000. I think the top of the scale is $64,000 or $65,000.

The top of the scale for a nurse here in this Province is about $45,000 or

$46,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do they start out with?

MR. SULLIVAN: The starting scale - I think I have it here in my notes. I

can pull out the figures. I will just give you a rough idea. I think it is in

the thirties. I think it is about the mid-thirties, in that ballpark. I do not

want to say when I specifically do not know. From the mid-thirties to the

mid-forties is the range.

There is an significant difference there. People here probably know it, and

they have lots of family members, maybe spouses or husbands, whatever, who are

nurses, and they will know what the top of the scale is. I think it went to

$45,000 or $46,000.

It is not just the health care we talk about. Take education; that is coming

next. We are finding now, in education, that the demand on teachers is going to

be increasing significantly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Give us some helpful suggestions.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have been doing that since I started. I just talked about

- anyone who was tuning in here all day or the last day, I have been giving

suggestions galore. I have been giving them all along. Even the Minister of

Finance agreed with me on TV the other day, that the solutions to it are the

same as the ones I mentioned.

No wonder he is not Finance Minister any more. No wonder he got the flick.

Now he is going to wreak devastation on Mines and Energy. I hope he will come

back from that with a bundle of money and a nice big agreement that is in the

best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was giving the teachers' situation, and the shift is coming. The same

thing is happening. We went through a reclassification - you can call it what

you like - with nurses. They might not want to call it a raise, because if it is

an increase in salary, it is perceived as getting a certain amount. To them, it

does not make any difference. You can call it what you like. If you are going to

pay them the $45,000 or whatever, I do not care if it is in reclassification or

salary, it is income. Income to them is income, whatever way you want to cut it.

You can do what you like -

MR. SHELLEY: A nickel is a nickel.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, a nickel is a nickel.

MR. MATTHEWS: If I gave you a nickel today and you gave me a nickel

tomorrow, would I still have my nickel?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would check both sides of that nickel if I got it back

from him, I tell you. I would check both sides to make sure that it is exactly a

nickel, it is not nickel-coated, or some other lower value mineral, maybe a bit

of lead. Lead is not cheap either, is it? There is not much cheap those days in

the metal line. Now, nickel prices, what is the nickel price on the market

today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yesterday?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: About $3.

MR. MATTHEWS: You carry on. I will check the paper.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just let me know what nickel is, will you? I might want to

get back to that.

Take in education now, I was just touching on that area. I just talked about

health. My colleague might be able to help me out, because I have not looked at

the scale. Let's take a person who gets a degree at university. The minimum, I

guess, to go teaching is about five years. You usually do two degrees or

whatever, a conjoint degree. To go and teach with a degree, after five years, I

would assume you would start somewhere in the thirties.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-nine? You would start at about $30,000. If you are

there at the top of your scale, at fifth, you are getting about $42,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, at the top of the scale (inaudible) your Masters

Degree.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, without Masters, just five years. With your Masters,

you have to have years, right? Without your Masters, just with - you could have

two degrees, fifth grade, about $42,000 or $43,000. With sixth grade, the top

would be the high forties. In other words, you could spend five years at

university and go out, and the top of your scale would be three less than the

top of the scale of a nurse now, roughly. In teaching, you are going to see the

contract expiring - and, of course, I guess the nurses' contract is coming up

again.

MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: ( Inaudible) help the hon. member out, on page 34 of The

Telegram today, nickel is $6,075 a ton, so that is about $3 a pound U.S.

almost spot on. If that is helpful to you, carry on.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. I might say to the hon. minister, I do not get a

chance to read a paper until the night time. I usually look at those prices. The

Minister of Energy knew what the price of nickel is. It was $3, he said. He did

not need all this research. Just ask him.

MR. MATTHEWS: You check your stocks at night, do you?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not check my stocks. I do not check them at all. I

do not even bother. I got rid of them all, cashed them in. Go over and read my

public disclosure statement. You are welcome to read it. I do not even know if I

have a stock there.

MR. MATTHEWS : I am not even allowed to read my own.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to have a copy of yours, I tell you.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not allowed to read it.

MR. SULLIVAN: You put it in trust, did you? In whose trust?

MR. MATTHEWS: In Lloyd's trust.

MR. SULLIVAN: In God's trust. In God you trust, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the chance of getting a bit of lumber off you? I

want to build a deck.

MR. MATTHEWS: I will see how two by fours are going.

MR. SULLIVAN: What do you say I switch mine over there with the Minister

of Mines and Energy? I would go for that any day.

MR. MATTHEWS: You would be a poor man if you did.

MR. SULLIVAN: No Sir. I see people nodding over there. Go ahead and do

it. Get that in writing, I am being told.

MR. MATTHEWS: If I had your money, Loyola, I dare say I would be in a

warmer spot today.

MR. SULLIVAN: You would be retired, would you? You cannot retire at the

age of forty. You have to do something. You cannot retire that young.

MR. MATTHEWS: You will not live long enough to spend it all, so what will

you do with it, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, boy, I have a long list of people in line looking for a

cut of it. Some of them are doing a good job of spending it right now, doing a

fantastic job.

MR. MATTHEWS: I know what you mean. There is no trouble to get help with

it, is it?

MR. SULLIVAN: No trouble. It is getting pretty scarce now, I tell you.

Now, the next item. I want to touch on Investing in People. How is this

government investing in people? There will be set up a new department, Youth

Services and Post-Secondary Education, and the Status of Women. That is the same

department now.

MR. MATTHEWS: A very good minister in that department.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes.

Now, it is not the title you give to somebody. It is not what the title of

the department is; it is what it has done that counts, isn't it? It is not the

cosmetics of something; it is what is beneath that and what they do.

A minister in a new department - we will give you an opportunity; we will not

prejudge. It is too early to judge, I must say. Next year, we will give you a

report card and let you know what the department - there are some.... With our

youth, post-secondary education, that is our future. The future of our youth is

the future, and it is certainly positive to see the brakes first put on tuition

and then rolled back to a degree. That is a positive thing.

When you look at the cost of getting an education, if you happen to live at

home, for instance, in the city, and you have to come in from outside of home,

the difference is about an extra $6,000 difference over an eight month period.

It is costly. There are people in rural Newfoundland - I spoke to one person

last year who finished a degree program at MUN, were a course or two short, owed

$40,000, and wanted to go into another degree program and had trouble getting a

student loan because they had drawn down on student loans so many semesters. She

wrote a letter and was lucky enough last year - this person is in the second

year of the new program, getting excellent marks, and the program she is in, she

will have no trouble getting a job when she comes out. Two more years to go, has

to go back again this year, and wonders if they are going to extend the student

loan. Her family cannot afford to support her. Hopefully they will extend it

beyond the semester, because she is after drawing down now, I guess, up to

$50,000 or more in student loans and still has two years to go in the program.

She is getting really good marks, a guaranteed job. There are jobs there for

everybody graduating in that area. That is an area we hope that increased

emphasis will be put on. Lightening the debt load is important in keeping people

here in the Province.

That is one of the reasons people leave, not just because of the situation of

work. The majority of people would like to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. I

think they would. They would like to live here, go to work and be able to live

comfortably. When you have a high debt load it is difficult to do that. Now, 10

per cent is probably not going to change that, but it is certainly a start. It

is a start, no doubt. It is a hell of a lot better than leaving it where it was

or letting it increase.

I remember I was education critic in 1992, when I got elected first in the

by-election.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were Education critic? And you couldn't (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't tell you that? When I was education critic they

never increased it, but they rolled it back with you. He is effective there.

They rolled back tuition since he became education critic, the Member for

Harbour Main-Whitbourne. They froze it first and now they have rolled it back.

If I remember correctly, I went back and checked it, in 1989, when this

government came to power, tuition for a semester - I may even have that here. I

have it up in my office in my notes. Tuition for a semester then was, I think,

$567, if I remember the figure. In that ballpark.

MR. BARRETT: When the PCs came to power, it was nothing. When the PCs

came to power tuition was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I w