March 30, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 9

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the tremendous

contribution of Martin Saunders to the labour movement in this Province. Mr.

Saunders has been a friend of mine for many years, going back long before my

entry into politics in 1975. We may have differed politically, but never did we

differ on issues of work place health and occupational safety.

Mr. Saunders was attracted to the labour movement from his very first job at

the age of seventeen, in Stephenville. His labour roots really crystalized in

1958 while working as an orderly in the Sanatorium in Corner Brook; an

institution, by the way, that became familiar to me at the age of twelve.

Martin Saunders really became a heavyweight in the labour movement in Baie

Verte. Martin led two momentous strikes in Baie Verte. In 1968 he led a strike

to change the work week from a six-day, forty-eight-hour week to a five-day,

forty-hour week. It took ten weeks but he finally prevailed.

By 1978 there was no doubt in the Western world that asbestos was an

industrial hazard. Advocate Mines had refused to mitigate both the hazard by

installing even the basics like shower facilities so miners would not bring

asbestos dust home to their families. It took fourteen weeks on the picket line,

but Martin and the union again prevailed. Martin's efforts have improved

tremendously the lot of all workers in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Martin and his wife Ethel a long and enjoyable

retirement. His last day on the job will be tomorrow, Friday, March 31, but his

legacy as a labour leader will live on as the labour history of this Province is

written.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House

that this morning the conceptual design of "The Rooms" was unveiled.

As you know, last December 13th, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

announced its decision to proceed with the development of a new home for our

provincial museum, archives and art gallery.

Since then, our architectural team has proceeded with the development of the

conceptual design which we have reviewed with the various stakeholder groups and

the arts and heritage communities. Today, the final design was unveiled.

Mr. Speaker, the design for "The Rooms" is home-grown. It reflects

our heritage and the traditional structures of the Province. As such, this

building will not only contain our heritage treasures but will be symbolic of

the structures that used to cover the entire shoreline of the Province. This is

particularly important because, at a time when our fishery is undergoing one of

its most radical transformations in its history, most of the architecture which

is associated with the old fishery is rapidly disappearing. It is therefore

fitting that our main cultural buildings will keep its memory alive and serve

continually to remind us of our important historical roots.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, "The Rooms" embodies the cultural values of

our society and, as such, is expected to make an artistic as well as an

architectural statement. The building will be a major addition to the skyline,

without dominating it. It will fit in well with the other institutional and

religious buildings in the neighborhood, while standing out and making a

statement about the value we place on our cultural heritage.

I am pleased to report that the cost of constructing "The Rooms"

remains within our established budget of $40 million. We will continue to

monitor the project closely to ensure that it stays that way.

Soon, you will be seeing some activity at the Fort Townshend site.

Archeological work will begin this spring, construction will begin this coming

September, and we are still on

schedule to open the building to the public by

March 2003.

Mr. Speaker, we will be soliciting the further advice of the arts and

cultural communities as we proceed with the fabrication of the museum exhibits

for "The Rooms". The construction of "The Rooms" presents an

unequaled opportunity for us to review the historical themes that have

traditionally been interpreted at the Newfoundland museum, and to see how these

can be improved. We intend to consult with experts and ordinary citizens on this

topic, to ensure that the stories we tell are those which truly reflect who we

are as a society. We will be providing the public with more information in the

near future as to how they can make their contribution to this process.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the PHB Group for the

excellence of their design, and they were greatly assisted by the staff of the

three institutions who contributed their expertise and many hours of hard work

to ensure that the building will be state-of-the-art. I would also like to thank

the representatives of the arts and heritage groups who provided their advice on

the design of the building during a session held last February.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate today what was said at the

December 13 announcement: "Through The Rooms' the province is renewing

its commitment to preserving and promoting our cultural heritage, a heritage

unlike any other in the world and one of which we are justly proud. The cultural

artifacts, natural history specimens, archival documents and works of art which

have been accumulated over the years in these three provincial institutions are

resources of global significance. They exist nowhere else and in "The

Rooms" they will preserved and exhibited in the best possible manner."

Mr. Speaker, "The Rooms" will become a common link to our heritage,

reinforcing the connection between those living today and those who came before

them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly appropriate that anything reflecting our history, from a

museum point of view, archives or art gallery, would be reflective of the basis

upon which our Province was founded; basically, reflecting the fishery and why

people came here in the first place. It is something we have to develop, and be

proud of our past and put it forward as an attraction for people to come to our

Province. Certainly there was a fair amount lacking in coordination in that

particular area in the past, and this is something that will certainly overcome

some of those shortcomings.

I am sure, I say to the minister, we will hear other announcements by the

time it is officially opened; you can count on that. We might all be invited to

the pouring of the cement yet, who knows, for the foundation, but I am sure we

will see other stages.

AN HON. MEMBER: Electrical contractors.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a good spot too.

I think it is important that we preserve our culture, not only preserve it

but also flaunt it and show it off to the rest of the world. I must say that

conceptual design here, it does look good and hopefully its completion, the

interior, will be laid out in such a manner that will reflect our culture, our

Province, so people can come here and automatically strike an association on

what we are all about when they walk inside that building.

From a conceptual point of view, in design, it looks good and we will be

looking forward to seeing if that is going to be implemented right through the

interior.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that we have moved so quickly to the concept design stage

of this truly historic project. It is a project worthy of the entry of the new

millennium, a significant historic and cultural project. I am looking at the

conceptual designs and ,whatever initial fears there may have been about what we

are going to get, this looks very magnificent in terms of its structure and it

appears to fit very well with the other buildings around there in terms of

scope, scale and design. It looks like we will have, in fact, a truly

magnificent project once it is finished. I hope that we do continue at the speed

at which we are proceeding, and I look forward to hearing further news from

government on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to update the hon. members about an

exciting technology that my department has been developing which will benefit

businesses and municipalities throughout our Province.

Over a year ago, I launched a comprehensive online business information

system, that is accessible through the Internet, called Success~Works. This

system is evolving from an information tool to a comprehensive e-business site

for economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Technology is becoming more and more integrated into the worldwide business

community, and we must continue to find new ways to ensure that our businesses

are able to take advantage of these opportunities.

This year we are expanding Success~Works' current capabilities and focusing

on three main initiatives.

First, detailed community profiles are being developed which will be used by

my department to work with site selectors in attracting new businesses to our

Province. In April, members of a committee of the Regional Economic Development

Boards and my department plan to attend the International Development Research

Council meeting in New York. Ready access to the right kind of information is

essential in order to compete, and my staff has incorporated these requirements

into the Success~Works planning.

Second, in the coming months, my department will be working closely with the

Alliance of Manufacturers and Exports of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

Government Purchasing Agency to conduct a province-wide survey of manufacturers'

products. Once completed, we will have the most comprehensive listing of

products produced in Newfoundland and Labrador on our web site. This will be a

definite advantage for sourcing, in particular, government procurement

opportunities.

Finally, my department's web site is being re-designed to incorporate the

information available from Success~Works and to make the site even more

e-business enabled. Ebusiness includes any activity that uses Internet

technologies to convey information that enables a company to do business.

E-commerce, one component of e-business, was worth $1.4 billion in Canada in

1999, and that number is expected to double this year. We want a significant

doubling in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, these developments directly address some of the

issues highlighted during the Jobs and Growth consultations, such as the need

for cooperation at all levels and the need for government to create an

environment that stimulates business and economic growth. Success~Works is one

of the tools which will help us to enhance that environment.

The strategic advantages offered by Success~Works are available to all

municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador and all businesses.

I ask all hon. members to encourage individuals and organizations and

businesses in their districts to become part of this dynamic initiative. It is

available through our Web site, success.nfld.net, and my department would be

happy to work with anyone who is interested in becoming involved. As we move

forward with its development, Success~Works is giving our Province and our

companies a definite business advantage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

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

I am going to take a balanced approach to responding to this statement. First

of all, I am going to commend the minister on initiatives one and three because

they were not my idea. My good friend the Finance Minister, when he was in

another capacity, will remember following me around the Province as I consulted

with business people and manufacturers. I'm sure he will remember one of the

recommendations I made to have an online site with a listing of all the products

manufactured in this Province to help procurement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: - and to help government know what products were

available, and to help municipalities know what products were available. So, you

are welcome, minister, for initiative number two, but I will say that you have

not gone far enough. Just today, minister, when I had lunch in our own cafeteria

in this building, I will say that in order for me to get locally bottled water I

had to request it at the counter. Because we proudly display imported water in

our cafeteria but to avail of manufactured locally bottled water you have to

request it specifically. It is the same old thing.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we want to be serious about initiative number two

we will take the initiative to ensure that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - we promote locally manufactured products in our own

buildings, in our own cafeterias -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - and we practice what we preach, minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was trying to get as excited as the minister was when she was reading her

statement but I could not quite manage it. It is obviously very important -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't have a crowd cheering me on like she has over

there, you see, but in good time, Mr. Speaker.

It is important that all manufacturers in this Province have access to the

World Wide Web, especially those small manufacturers who do not have the capital

or the money to put in to the development of their own personal websites. I

think it is important that every business in this Province have proper access. I

am glad the minister has undertaken that. I don't think we will see the

jackets of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on that website

because they are not really manufactured right here, but for things that are

manufactured in this Province we want to see them have access to those markets

as quickly as possible. I commend the minister on her efforts in achieving that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow the Dairy Farmers of

Newfoundland and Labrador are holding their annual general meeting in Corner

Brook.

I stand in the House today to highlight the many areas of this vital industry

within the provincial economy.

Forty-nine dairy farms are operating in this Province. Milk production for

1999 is estimated at about 33 million litres of fluid milk and is continuously

increasing. This year's target is expected to be exceeded by more than 1.4

million litres. This is an indication that producers are becoming more efficient

in their operations. Local production has placed Newfoundland and Labrador at

100 per cent self-sufficiency in fluid milk.

Many farms have shown increases in milk production as a result of excellent

management in areas of genetics, nutrition and housing.

The dairy business is a $100 million industry with employment in excess of

700 people and, indirectly, over 1,000. These jobs, created between farms,

Brookfield Dairies and Central Dairies - these are two of the best processing

firms across the country - include on-farm processing, manufacturing, marketing

and sales, and transportation.

The dairy industry continues to develop and grow. There has been ongoing work

in the field of grain production. In 1999, there were 100 acres of land seeded

and harvested with barley and wheat. For four years in a row, cattle corn has

been planted in the western region. These measures are aimed at reducing the

cost of feed to our farmers.

Work is also being done in the area of forage production in order to improve

the producers' ability to implement better crop production management and

practices.

Programs such as The School Milk Program - again, an excellent program - and

The Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of Excellence encourage higher milk

consumption and the production of high quality milk respectively.

Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the finest professionals in the dairy

industry in Canada. Phil MacLean and Pauline Duivenvoorden, who operate Headline

Holstein Dairy Farms in Goose Arm and Reidville, were recognized early last year

as Atlantic Canada's Outstanding Young Farmers. Wilson Chaffey of St. David's,

one of the pioneers in dairy farming on the West Coast, was inducted into the

Atlantic Agriculture Hall of Fame last year.

The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods continues to provide support

to the dairy industry through such programs as: veterinary services, analysis of

feed and soils, subsidizing limestone prices, milk quality testing, engineering

services, extension services, identification of land use, and on-farm mapping.

In closing, let me say there are challenges ahead for the Newfoundland and

Labrador dairy industry. These challenges are being met with professionals and

up-to-date equipment. The economic prospects for this industry in this Province

are very positive and this is an agrifoods success story.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I would like to thank the minister for sending a copy of his

statement. I would like to congratulate the dairy farmers in Newfoundland and

Labrador for doing such a great job in managing, and their great ability in

their field of work in this industry.

I'm also glad to see the increased production is up by 1.4 million litres.

It is important that we utilize the product from the industry. We must realize

too that there are still a lot of added-value products coming into the Province

today that could be done here, but I am glad to see that this industry is moving

in the right direction and that the minister and his department are doing a

fairly good job in making sure that this industry moves in that direction, even

though we need a lot more work done in the forage production area. Because the

cost of transportation to the farmers in this Province today must be very high.

That could be one of the key areas where it would make our industry more

successful and more viable.

Also, I would like to recognize the School Milk Program and the Daphne Taylor

Milk Quality Award of Excellence. They are certainly such a good idea. I hope

that this will continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: Also, the recognition of our workers in the field today -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave denied.

MR. HUNTER: I conclude, Mr. Speaker, and encourage the department to

continue on the right track.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very encouraging to see that we have achieved 100 per cent

self-sufficiency in fluid milk in this Province. The dairy industry is an

example of how we can, in fact, have a successful agricultural industry in this

Province with the proper programs from government, the proper levels of

subsidization to ensure that we do have goods made here that we can consume

here, and be less reliant on imported foodstuffs. It is very important to have a

food policy based on that and I am delighted to see it happen. Obviously, we

have to try to reduce costs by having more local forage production and more

acres in development of feedstuffs so that the costs are brought down even

further. I am very pleased to see some outstanding dairy farmers are being

recognized as Wilson Chaffey has been in the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Oral Questions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier told the media that energy prices in the U.S. could

delay an agreement on the development of the Lower Churchill. I want to ask the

Premier to confirm that Premier Bouchard and Hydro Quebec negotiate the price

for Labrador power with U.S. customers and that neither he, nor Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, have any direct involvement, although this Province owns the

resource.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as was reported in the paper today, and as the

Premier said yesterday, negotiations continue. What the final agreement will be

and what it will include and exclude at this point is premature to say.

Negotiations are ongoing and as with any set of negotiations, 90 per cent of it

is easy, the last 5 per cent to 10 per cent is very difficult; the last 1 per

cent is the most difficult of all. We are getting to that point.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is, Premier, that this Province has no direct say in negotiating the

price for Labrador power once it enters the Quebec grid at the border. You may

be called up to Quebec City once in a while, as you were this week, for a

briefing from the real players, Lucien Bouchard and Quebec Hydro, but that is

the extent of your influence on price negotiations. Isn't it a fact, Premier,

that we have once again put ourselves in a position of total dependence on

Quebec -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and Quebec Hydro? Quebec is in control I say, Mr.

Speaker. It can, and I suggest it will, negotiate a price structure -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - with its U.S. customers that is in their best interest

and leave us, once again, with the leftovers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, anybody who has paid any attention to the

member who just spoke would realize we haven't had a question, we have had a

statement. It is so predictable and so transparent. The member says: Isn't it

a fact that we have done the following, A, B, C, D and E? The fact is we don't

have an agreement yet, so we are hardly in a position to talk about Newfoundland

going for a scattered meeting in Quebec City about pricing of power going into

the marketplace when (

a) we don't have an agreement and (

b) if we had an

agreement we would not have first power till 2008.

These gentlemen across the way are so hungry, so thirsty for a failure, Mr.

Speaker, that they get down on their knees and pray for it daily, but we are

working for success and we won't have a deal till we have one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does anyone believe, I say to the Premier, that Quebec, given the sole right

to market Labrador power, will put our interest ahead of their own? Let me put

this to the Premier. Beginning this year we will drop the price for Upper

Churchill power from 3 mills per kilowatt hour to 2 mills per kilowatt hour,

while Gull Island Power will come on stream at 25 mills per kilowatt hour to 30

mills per kilo watt hour. Why do we have to accept, I say to the Premier,

whatever scraps Quebec will give us from high costs and Gull Island Power, while

the Province of Quebec reaps even more extortionate prophets from the Upper

Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing across the way is an

inferiority complex manifest by way of a few words across the floor of the

House. The fact is this government is not going to put itself in the kind of

position that would replicate the Upper Churchill deal. The fact is we are

approaching this from a completely different point of view, one that recognizes

that Newfoundland and Labrador as the majority owner of any new development will

get the majority of the benefits from any future development.

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about recent deals involving mega-projects

that have disadvantaged the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, let's talk

about the Peckford deal on Hibernia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, why not tell Quebec to write off any loss in its expected profits on

the Lower Churchill from the increased profits it will get at our expense on the

Upper Churchill? Better still, I say to the Premier, why don't you insist on a

blended price for both Upper and Lower Churchill power? Why should you ask the

people of this Province to take less than that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry. Did the Member for Bonavista South want to

speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Member for Bonavista

South is saying, but he clearly does not want an answer to the question being

asked by the member opposite who has just spoken.

The member opposite is frankly being childish in his approach to this issue

in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The fact of the matter is that the contract signed in the

1960s has been attacked by every administration that has come to power in this

Province, including two Conservative administrations and two Liberal

administrations. It has been in and out of court, and we are stuck with a

contract which was a colossal and tragic error for the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Almost as bad, but not quite, as the Hibernia contract, because in

the case of Hibernia once the oil is gone, it is gone. At least in the case of

Churchill Falls, at some point, the contract expires and the power is still

there. That is a debate about the work of the Peckford Administration on another

day, and one I'm doing some research on. I will be glad to share it with the

member opposite.

On a go forward basis we are attempting to understand, on the one hand, that

you cannot rewrite history. It has been tried. You can draft a better

chapter

for the future. That is what we are attempting to do. We do not have an

inferiority complex. We do not have a chip on our shoulders. We think, as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are as bright, we are as able, we have as

much capacity as anybody anywhere. We think it is possible for Newfoundland and

Labrador to negotiate a good deal.

I would ask the member opposite to bring that level of confidence and

maturity to the questions he is putting across the floor of the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are on health. I know the Premier will be up trying to

beat some common sense into Allan Rock over the next day or two, so I will ask

the questions to the Premier.

It has been a practice to have visiting pediatric cardiac surgeon come to

this Province from Ottawa twice a year to perform minor cardiac surgeries.

Babies and young children that require major and emergency surgery are flown to

Halifax, Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa, depending on where the availability is. I

ask the Premier: Why are we now without a visiting pediatric cardiac surgeon and

all children are now being sent out of this Province for cardiac surgery?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this question in another form was addressed to

us yesterday in the version of the lack or the scarcity of specialists. At that

time I did speak to the House about the efforts that are underway through the

Department of Health and Community Services to try and improve the availability

of specialist services.

I am sure there is a level of detail associated with this specific issue that

the Minister of Health and Community Services will be able to address at this

time, but in general it is part of the larger issue that the department is very

conscious of, that government is very conscious of, that we have dedicated

specific resources to, trying to reverse, and we will continue to do so.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is to the Premier on a more general budgetary matter. Last

year, there were about sixty children sent out of this Province. With no

visiting pediatric cardiac surgeon this year, there will be about an extra

twenty or thirty who would need minor surgeries, who will have to go out also.

So we are looking at eighty to ninety being sent out.

With the high cost of airfare, living out of hotel rooms, like in Toronto and

other areas, for several weeks in some cases where we have a very serious heart

problem, especially after birth - parents of those babies are really perplexed

as to why government this year made an announcement that they are going to pay

for the full cost of sending sixty adults out of this Province for adult cardiac

surgery and they are not doing it for young children and babies who need that

surgery.

I want to ask the Premier: Why are you forcing the parents to pick up those

huge costs for young babies who need life-saving surgery, surgery that cannot be

performed in this Province, when you are willing to pay for it for adults?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget, government has allocated a

significant investment in the health care area, $138 million new money overall

to the care and health of our citizens in the Province. This has had to be

distributed in different areas for different priorities.

Certainly one of the things we are most concerned about is the cardiac area

with respect to adults and with children. We are allocating our resources as

best we can to try to meet the ongoing needs, and will continue to do so, but at

any given time there are pressing priorities that arise in each of these areas.

There is no simple solution, as I said yesterday, to many of these issues

that we are facing in the health care area, but we will continue to make it our

number one priority and to do the best we can with the resources that we have to

meet the needs of infants, of children, of adults, for health care in this

Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Basically, the estimates showed $31.7 new million in the health care budget

this year, not $130-some million. That is here in the estimates that are filed

in this House.

My question, I say to the minister, was: Why are you paying the full cost to

send sixty adults out of this Province, an escort to go with them, hotel and all

costs, and you are not doing it for young, sick babies who need that help? That

was my question, and that is the one to which I didn't get an answer.

I will ask one final question. There are certain cardiac surgeons out there,

and I know the volume of work in this Province for one full-time pediatric

surgeon may not be there because we have a declining number of births here in

our Province - I'll grant that - but there are cardiac surgeons who do both

adult and pediatric cardiac surgery in the minor cases that could be done by

cardiac surgeons who generally specialize in adults.

I wonder, and I want to ask the minister: Has the Province looked at this

option? If not, if they haven't looked at this, what plan do they have to

address this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure the member opposite,

because I know he has an interest in health care, that the Province will look at

any and every option - I cannot give you a commitment on the spot - that will

help address the issue of cardiac care. That is why we have taken measures like

sending people out of the Province to ensure that the waiting list doesn't

continue to expand. The member has just said that he supports that option; that

is why we are spending money expanding our capacity to do cardiac surgeries

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is a larger issue and we can't have it both ways in this

House. The Leader of the Opposition has said in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, I would ask to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: The Leader of the Opposition has said in the House that

the Province is running, in reality, a $350 million deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has said that

the Province is running a $350 million deficit. The health critic, who has just

spoken, said a few days ago on an open line show that there are tens of millions

in savings to be had. The same health critic said in this House - and Hansard

will show - that several hundreds of millions could be saved.

The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot, in the one breath, say

that the Province is broke; that we have mortgaged the future; that we are spent

too much money on health care; and, in the very next breath, stand and ask for

more money to be committed without looking for efficiencies in our health care

system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: This government has committed more money, substantially

more money, but we are also committed to finding efficiencies in the health care

system, and we would expect the sensible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: - and the realistic participation and cooperation of the

member opposite in achieving those goals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The Minister of Finance announced -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Should be. You woke up finally, did you?

The Minister of Finance announced that there would be no new taxes as a

result of this Budget 2000. It is here in the Budget, under Budget Outlook, no

new taxes in the Budget; and the Premier confirmed this afterwards in the media.

Does the minister still stand by the fact that he is saying here that there

will be no new taxes this year?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the best of my knowledge, unless I have missed something, and I don't

believe I have, there are no new types of taxes introduced in this Budget.

If the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis is referring to an equalization,

or a leveling up of the payroll tax on a select group of resource industry

related enterprises that took place in the Budget, then we announced that in the

Budget. It is a circumstance that we believe we could not further defend having

a differential rate, but -

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that your final answer?

MR. MATTHEWS: Read my lips. There have been no new payroll taxes in this

Budget. The same payroll taxes that always existed are there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - but at a $6.6 million less take in terms of the rate that

we are applying and the businesses being applied to.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister, I will give you a life line. You can

phone Chuck.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, why is it the liquor outlets have

received a directive dated March 23, one day after the Budget, from the Liquor

Commission with a new price list effective April 1, 2000?

Won't the minister confirm certain products will increase in price because

the liquor board has to come up with another $10 million for the Budget this

year? Here is a copy of it right here.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I have to say to the hon. member, it is not an area of

interest I have indulged in or looked heavily into other than with respect to

taxes on spirits and liquor. To the hon. member and to the rest of the Province,

let me reaffirm: there have been no new taxes leveled on liquor or spirits. The

fact that the price of the product may have changed is not unlike the fact that

the price of the product at the gasoline pumps have changed. We had nothing to

do with it. It is driven my market forces.

In terms of the $5 million dividend that we have asked the Liquor Corporation

to return to the government this year, we have told them to do that on the basis

of going out and financing the inventory they are carrying now on a cash basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Is the

minister aware, in addition to the changes in reductions in seasonal workers

qualifying for UI, that now 70 per cent of unemployed women do not qualify for

unemployment insurance and, in fact, 90 per cent of unemployed women under

twenty-five do not qualify for unemployment insurance?

Now, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has invited the federal

Minister of Human Resources to Newfoundland. Is this minister concerned about

this issue as being discriminatory against women? And does she plan to make any

representations to the federal government with respect to changes needed in the

UI system to protect women?

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, over the past four

months this issue has become evident through some of the monitoring and

assessment reports that have been done on the EI account.

Back in the fall when the ministers met with the Federal Labour Market

Ministers, and the subject of EI was one of the major subjects that was on the

agenda, this was one area that was specifically addressed. There were two areas

where we were seeing unanticipated disadvantages: the area of youth and the area

of women. This has been addressed with the federal minister. It is actively

under consideration between our departments at the provincial level and with the

federal government. I do expect in the upcoming meetings with the minister that

we will continue to look at this issue and ways to offset it.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another consequence of the changes in UI, particularly as they affect women,

is that fewer and fewer pregnant women now qualify for maternity benefits under

unemployment insurance. Given the fact that there is a $28 billion surplus in

the federal UI fund, is this minister and this government prepared to take the

position that maternity benefits ought to be de-connected from the unemployment

insurance qualifications and be available to all pregnant women in this country?

Will she take that position with the federal minister and with the federal

government on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human

Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, both as Minister of Human Resources and

Employment, and as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, we have

addressed this issue as well as the other issues associated with EI and how it

affects women. We are engaging with the federal government to try and look for

changes to help offset this. We will continue our efforts to make sure that

women receive equality in terms of their access to benefits in this area. The

federal government, I am sure, will continue to look at this issue seriously and

to try and find ways to improve the system.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I say to the

minister that it is a topic that no matter who you talk to today, is the first

thing to come off their lip, and that is their concern about what is happening

within the crab fishery here today.

Since it is obvious that there now will be some reduction in the amount of

snow crab harvested this year, I ask the minister if he has made any

recommendations to his federal cousin, or if he would inform the House today

whether a reduction should be made the same in all areas or if the area that

shows the greatest problem should be affected most?

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

MR. EFFORD: I would like to know what the hon. member is saying to his

fishermen, his constituents in Bonavista. What do you think the cuts should be?

Mr. Speaker, if there is an area around the Province - for example, 3K -

where it is very evident there has been a major problem for a number of years in

the decline in the crab stocks, or like 3PS where there seems to be no problem

whatsoever, the cuts have to be different. There will be no cuts in 3PS but

there will be significant cuts in an area like 3K. So wherever the science says

there is a problem, the appropriate decrease in the quota should take place,

based on good scientific information.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we finally got an answer to a question. I

thank the minister.

Minister, since there is now a great concern about processing overcapacity in

the snow crab fishery, and since some plants have a licence to process crab but

have not been active, I ask the minister if it is his intention now to allow

those plants access to the industry?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have a policy, not only in the processing of

crab, but with all species, that if a plant is inactive for two years it

automatically loses its licence. It is a use it or lose it policy. When it comes

to plants that processed a part of the season last year, or some that were

gearing up last year to process this year, I will leave that up now, today, for

discussions which I will be having on Tuesday with FANL and the industry. We

will be having discussions on how many plants will be open this year -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I'm sorry?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: There will be plants that will not be processing crab this

year, based on an inactive policy and based on economics.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, both you and the Premier have stated that a reduction of 20 per

cent to 25 per cent of snow crab harvesting should not hurt the industry in any

great negative way. Your comments were that the crab fishery in Alaska is much

less than last year and with our reduction here the markets should be strong and

crab should fetch a much higher price. Minister, there is one group that you

have forgotten. What about the crab plant workers, a group of people you are

responsible for?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten anybody in the fishing

industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the one thing we cannot do is predict

what nature is going to do. This is not a problem caused by overfishing. This is

not a problem caused by ignoring scientists' advice or management's advice

on the fisheries. This is a problem that has occurred by nature. There will be

some short-term pain incurred by everybody in the industry in the Province, but

I would rather see some short-term pain than what is happening in Alaska where

they have fished it to a complete closure of the industry where there will be

nobody working at all.

Now take into consideration that last year 42,000 tonnes of quotas of

different species was left in the water. That is a significant amount of

employment. Those people who did not catch those species last year will have

less crab to catch and they will have more time to go out and catch turbot,

shrimp, redfish, tuna and other species which will create a significant amount

of employment where there will be loss in the crab industry.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions in the same

subject area, but I believe they are more appropriately put to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs.

I say to the minister that he is no doubt aware that there has been a

developing crab fishery outside the Canadian 200-mile zone now for the last

number of years. What I want to ask the minister is this. Is the minister aware

that over the past year five Russian factory trawlers carrying Russian crews,

equipped with crab boilers and brine freezers, have been reflagged under the

Taiwan flag and have been, for the past several months, fishing for crab outside

the Canadian 200-mile zone adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. EFFORD: I do not know who is doing the research or who is doing the

investigation and preparing the questions for him. It was only yesterday I had a

call from a person in Newfoundland who said a Russian ship left Harbour Grace

last week with 5,000 pots on board. I can tell the hon. member that from all the

information we have got from DFO, from the Coast Guard and from everybody else,

they are not fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Now, if they are

fishing on the Flemish Cap or some other place around the world, we have not got

that information yet.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.

I want to say to the minister this. If this Russian fishing effort, under the

guise of a flag of convenience, causes enough crab to flow into the marketplace

to replace any reduction that might take place inside the Canadian zone, the

minister knows what dramatic effect that will have on harvesters, processors,

and plant workers in Newfoundland.

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I say to the Premier, if.

Now I want to ask the minister: Has the minister raised this issue with his

appropriate federal colleagues? If so, what plans have been put in place to

mitigate the economic fallout of that kind of disaster in Newfoundland and

Labrador?

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

MR. EFFORD: Hypothetical questions, if, if. I feel like I am back, Mr.

Speaker, in 1985 hearing the same types of comments coming from the

then-Minister of Fisheries for the Province.

First of all, if Russian, Japan, Greenland or anybody else catches crab and

puts it into the marketplace there is absolutely nothing anybody in this world

can do about that. That is what is called free enterprise. It will have no

bearing on the Newfoundland crab industry, either the rise or fall of prices.

Last year Alaska harvested 235,000,000 pounds of crab. The crab price in

Newfoundland last year went as high at $2 in the fall. The crab prices this year

are starting off at pretty well the same level as they did last year. Will it

have an impact?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are contradicting yourself.

MR. EFFORD: I am not contradicting myself. I am talking about the crab

industry out there. Nova Scotia's quota doubled this year, New Brunswick's

quota doubled this year, Greenland's quota doubled this year, and the markets

are still there for the high-quality products that we ship out of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would compose himself he would

know why the price is going up this year. It has all to do with supply.

I want to say to the minister that the minister is aware that because crab is

a sedentary species, Canada as the coastal state - no matter where it is outside

of 200 miles - has all the rights in international law to manage and control the

utilization of this resource. What I want to ask the minster is: Has the

disposal to ensure that this under the table crab fishery by the Russians is

stopped immediately; and, if he did, what response has he gotten from his

federal colleagues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture who, in his eloquence and generosity, allowed me a moment to briefly

live again in the guise of a fisheries minister. Thank you, Minister, for your

generosity.

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that the government knows that under the UN

Convention, Canada has the right to manage sedentary species, and indeed he is

right; because a previous Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa arrested two American

fishing boats, the Alpha and the Omega , and dragged them into St.

John's harbour when they were catching scallops offshore, and would not let

them go until the United States recognized Canada's jurisdiction over

sedentary species. I was pleased to do that in 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was feeling in such a magnanimous mood that

I hired a former Premier of Newfoundland to work in the Department of DFO to

give us some legal advice while he was at law school - indeed, the member

opposite who just spoke - and he did a good job. He did a good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: May I finish, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to finish quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that we never,

ever, raise the navy on the basis of if; we raise the navy when we had a

problem; but I assure the member, if there is a problem one day, we will call

DFO and expect them to their jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, while the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, since he is in such

a good mood today: Is the Premier aware that today, outside the Canadian

200-mile zone, there are more vessels fishing today than when the Estai was

brought into St. John's, Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong when he says that;

because, first of all -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to check it. I want the

member to know that the next time he needs post-political employment

opportunities and assistance, I will there for him again right after the next

election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

PREMIER TOBIN: Because, Mr. Speaker, he is like one of those flag of

convenience vessels that we looked after. The first time a gun boat was shown to

be on the horizon, they turned and ran and they have not come back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the 1999 Annual Report of the Labour Relations Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought we were still on Presenting Reports, if I might.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Chair did not see any member standing. Will we

revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 55, paragraph 3 of the Financial Administration Act, I

wish to table the following list of loan guarantees paid out by the Province

since the last report to the House.

Mr. Speaker, further pursuant to

section 28 of the Financial Administration

Act, I am tabling today seven copies of Special Warrants.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday and Tuesday, April 3

and April 4, the House will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some constituents from

Bonavista South. The petition reads: Petition to reduce fees for building ATV

trails.

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

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

Labrador;

WHEREAS the government is charging unreasonably high fees to people who

construct ATV trails so they can access the Newfoundland and Labrador outdoors;

and

WHEREAS protecting our wilderness does not have to mean taking advantage of

people who do not have any other way to access our wilderness area;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to take immediate action to reduce the fees charged to people constructing ATV

trails;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I thought was looked after, because I

raised this concern here in the House in the last sitting and I talked about the

cost that was being incurred by people who wanted to react, in a positive way,

to rules and regulations that the government brought in by saying that you are

not allowed to drive your ATV over areas that are wet marshlands and other areas

that would do damage to the environment.

I related to the minister how one individual had spent in excess of $650 in

order to construct a trail leading to his cabin. The nature of those fees was:

$115 for a permit to create the trail; $21 for a cutting permit. Then he found

himself going back in the second year to continue with his trail, to find out

that he had to get another $21 cutting permit and he had to pay $100 to register

a title document. Everywhere on that particular road - everything that he was

doing to adhere to government rules and regulations - he found that he had to

pass over a small stream or brook. Then he was being a responsible person and he

constructed a bridge. For each bridge that he built, government charged him

another $100.

Mr. Speaker, this is from a government who have gone out and said that people

have to be responsible. If you are going to be using your all-terrain vehicles,

we don't want to deny you access to your cabin but we suggest that you cut a

trail and you stay away from wetlands and marshlands and we will issue you a

permit.

What it is: it is not government concerned about wetlands, marshlands, and

damage to the environment. Obviously it is a money grab where this individual

now finds himself having to abandon the trail that he has half-way cut to get to

his cabin, or leave his ATV out by the road, because government has saddled him

with a $650 permit fee in order to cut a trail-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to abide by government rules and regulations.

I ask the government and I ask the minister, since last year he reacted so

positively when this concern was presented to the House and he looked over at me

and said: Roger, that is going to be looked after, that won't happen -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Obviously, it hasn't been looked after and is still a

great concern to those people who want to abide by rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, you know, as I do, for many people in this Province their small

cabin in the woods is their trip to Florida. It is the only holiday they take.

In order to access that cabin and that little cottage, they use their

all-terrain vehicles. If they want to act responsibly, then I say to the

minister and I say to the Premier that maybe it is time that we looked at some

of those silly rules and regulations, and maybe it is time that if we have

people listening to government and abiding by government rules and regulations,

that we don't reach out and reach into their pocket and take this kind of

money from the people in this Province who can least afford to pay for it.

Thank you.

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

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

I am presenting another petition today from the residents of Shea Heights,

requesting wheelchair accessible housing units within the community of Shea

Heights.

As I have yesterday and the previous day, these petitions, I am sure, will

keep coming in because it is an area of concern for the residents of Shea

Heights. There are a number of residents in the area now living in housing units

that are not wheelchair accessible; however, these individuals use wheelchairs

and they have no ability to get up and down the stairs in their properties -

within the Newfoundland and Labrador housing unit properties - without

considerable effort.

What we are asking for is nothing great. It is just to have equal access for

people with handicaps, for people with disabilities. What we are asking for in

the Shea Heights area is for government to construct a couple of housing units

people with handicaps can have equal access to Newfoundland and Labrador

housing. At present, the only solution for the people in the Shea Heights area

is to go to another area of the city for handicap-accessible housing.

As we all know, the community of Shea Heights is a very close community. The

families in the area rely heavily upon each other for assistance and help. As we

have seen just prior to Christmas, when there was a house in the area burned

down, most of the community rallied around that particular family and helped

them construct a brand new home in a period of two weeks. It took just two weeks

to construct a brand new home. They were in there for Christmas.

What I am trying to portray here is the fact that the families in the Shea

Heights area, if there is a family in need, the other families in the Shea

Heights area rally around and do what they can to help the family that is in

need. It is really not acceptable to expect a family from the Shea Heights area

to go down to the east end, or go out to Mt. Pearl, away from their sources of

help.

What we are asking is for serious consideration by government to the

construction of wheelchair-accessible units in the Shea Heights area so that the

families in the Shea Heights area can continue to rely upon the support network

that is evident and existing in the Shea Heights area, and that people with

disabilities, people who are using wheelchairs, can continue to live within

their own community and rely upon friends and family when that is needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion 1, the hon. the Minister of Finance to move that this

House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, otherwise

known as the Budget Speech.

We are going to have almost three hours, I suppose, of glorious,

enlightening, information from the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I find it necessary to stand now and point out

what were misleading comments that were made here in the House of Assembly

during Question Period, for the reason that there is enough devastation and

enough hurt in the minds of people of Newfoundland Labrador now about the crab

fishery and about what is going to happen in the year 2000.

I just went out and checked, and called DFO to confirm what I had already

said. Here is exactly what happened: A Russian ship was loaded with crab pots in

Harbour Grace. DFO, Coast Guard officials, enforcement officers, boarded the

vessel and checked out everything. They also have regular surveillance flying

over the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap. They were told that the shellfish on

the bottom, right out to the edge of the Continent Shelf and the Flemish Cap, is

under Canada's jurisdiction. They confirmed that the pots they were taking is

exactly as I said. Those pots are doing exploring work off Greenland, absolutely

nothing to do with Canadian waters whatsoever.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all there is no point of order.

MR. EFFORD: You don't make that (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Speaker makes that decision. I have been here long

enough not to allow the minister to take the House on his back either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, he had his moment or two to make his point of

order. I am saying to Your Honour that there is no point of order. If there is

anything, there might be a disagreement between two hon. members, but neither am

I going to be hoodwinked into taking the word of that minister. There is

something to this and the minister is not going to get away with it just because

he doesn't like it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the Member for Lewisporte say

that he was not going to be hoodwinked by the Minister of Fisheries. I would ask

the hon. gentleman to be a gentleman and say what he should say, that he will

withdraw that statement, that he will not attribute motives to the Minister of

Fisheries, that he will not do through the back door - try to call him what he

is not allowed to call him in this House, and withdraw that. If he doesn't

want to believe the information that is fine, but not to say he is somehow

trying to mislead the House and hoodwink him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the original point of order, there was actually no point of order. The

hon. member took the opportunity to clarify some statements that had been made

earlier.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Today I want to give the Government House Leader a little lesson in math,

which he tried to give me the other day when I asked him questions with respect

to the Auditor General's report. I don't think he hoodwinked me. I tell you

what it was like; it was like the kindergarten student trying to give a

university professor a lesson in math.

What he said, when I asked him a question with respect to the wastage of $60

million in the Auditor General's report, was: $18.1 million, $7 million and

$8.975 million add up to $32 million. Actually, it adds up to $34.07 million. He

tried to give the impression -

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

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

MR. TULK: I just want to say to the hon. gentleman that the difference

between $32 million and $34 million - if I could give him another little bit of

math - is $2 million. The difference between $34 million, if he wants to use his

figure, and $60 million, is some $24 million. So my mistake and my knowledge of

math must be a little bit better than his.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-six.

MR. TULK: Twenty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I won't comment about the mistake he just made but I will tell him this. He

jumped up on a point of order before I had time to finish. I was getting to the

$60 million, and I checked it out again. When you look at it, here is what the

$60 million we were referring to - that he tried to say I was wrong in my

figures. I will not use the word mislead. In

summary, only 25 per cent of ENL's

total loan and equity portfolio of $78.2 million is estimated to be collectible.

Mr. Speaker, also - let's sit down now. Don't panic, I say to the

Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not only that; those figures, that 25 per cent and the $60

million, are not even the Auditor General's figures. They are the department's

figures themselves. They gave those figures to her and she accepted them. She

really doesn't know if they are that accurate or not. So, I say to the

Government House Leader, don't be so smart. Don't try to be too cute by a

half.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Is the hon. gentleman now saying that the public officials of

this Province tried to mislead the Auditor General? Let me give him a couple of

facts about what he is saying. The truth of the matter is that the Auditor

General, in the first part of her report, said only 25 per cent of $78 million

was recovered. Now she was using a doubtful allowance account of somewhere

around 39 per cent. I am going to confuse him now. Of that, 7 per cent belonged

to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. Further on in her report,

though, she says: Historically, the department, ENL, has collected 62 per cent

of its accounts receivable. I wonder, did he get that?

MR. J. BYRNE: What's Newco?

MR. TULK: What's what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Newco.

MR. TULK: I will tell you what Newco is if you stand up. You won't like

it but I will tell you what it is.

The truth of the matter is that the Auditor General made those statements but

she did not say that the Department of Development and Rural Renewal had spent

$60 million when in fact its total budget, including the special reserve fund,

was only $34.2 million. You would have to waste it all.

Mr. Speaker, I can't say he's stunned. That is not right. I can't say

that.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The Government House Leader, further to the $34 million he is talking about,

is trying to be too cute by a half. It only goes back to 1996, 1996-1997,

1997-1998, 1998-1999. That is what he is trying to hang his hat on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Sit down and let me address the point of order you are

talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that the Department of Development and

Rural Renewal did not waste and did not lose $60 million. The Auditor General

did make the statement that there is $78 million in the outstanding balance;

that if you use an allowance for doubtful accounts that an accountant would use,

then only 25 per cent of that is recoverable. What the Auditor General's

report does not show is that some of that belonged to a previous administration

- the Wells Administration - some of it belonged to the Rideout Administration,

some of that belonged to the Peckford Administration.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman that he should check out all of his facts.

When ENL was not even around, I say to him that the Auditor General put

everything under ENL fifty-two times in the report when she should have been

using either DDRR, NLDC, RAND, RDA, which goes back to both the Peckford and the

Rideout administrations, as well as the Wells Administration, and has nothing to

do with the Tobin Administration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Now I can understand why you allowed him to have a second point of order

because his first point of order wasn't a point of order. I will address that

anyway.

I will address this point. He made a comment that I was saying that the

executives of his department misled the Auditor General. That is not what I said

at all. What I said is that the Auditor General made a statement that those

figures that she was using are from the department. They are the department's

own figures. There is no difference in the figures, I say to the Government

House Leader, and he chooses not to listen to those statements.

We have here in the Auditor General's Report, under the Department of

Development and Rural Renewal, is this statement: "Loans were made to

companies that had existing loans in arrears or when there were indications that

management was not acting in good faith." That has happened. This

government has done that. They have gone back. Yes, there may be some back in

the 1980s, but he was trying to hang his hat - from 1996 to 1999 is where the

$34 million comes into it. In actual fact, there is over $60 million that the

Auditor General is referring to and I will take her figures any day over his.

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Let me say to the hon. gentleman that if he wants to look at the loans that

the Department of Development and Rural Renewal made to companies that came from

other governments, of the total $78 million that the Auditor General is talking

about, the Department of Development and Rural Renewal to those companies that

had problems, in an effort to try to keep them alive -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Are you listening? It loaned $273,000. Do you have that figure?

Two hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars out of $78 million. If he wants

any other information, I can assure him I have lots over here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting used to those no point of orders, Mr. Speaker.

What about the Strategic Enterprise Development Special Reserve Fund, I say

to the Government House Leader, that I asked questions on the other day and he

didn't answer? He deliberately skirted around. He didn't answer the question

with respect to the Strategic -

MR. TULK: I will tell you the truth. I thought you were going to ask a

third question and I was going to answer the second question.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is logical.

MR. TULK: You ask me tomorrow (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I will ask you anything now.

The Auditor General said this: Our review disclosed that these procedures

were not followed for three projects. That is what I asked him about the other

day. Why weren't the proper procedures followed on the three projects?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, he will get up on a point of order. Get up on

unanswered questions, that is what you can do.

Today, I asked questions to the Minister of Finance with respect to taxes and

how the Budget said there are no new taxes in this Budget. Of course, as I said

before, the next day a memo goes out to all the liquor outlets in the Province,

dated March 23, effective April 1, a new price list.

Our leader asked questions in the House, and he made statements after the

Budget, that because of this Budget and the monies that the different

corporations would have to borrow, you would see increases in liquor, you would

see increases in electricity rates, and you would see increases in other areas

of the Province. That is the very point I was making today: they are not doing

it through the front door but they are doing it through the back door. Over the

past number of years, with respect to the budgets in this Province, they have

always tried to praise and brag that there are no new taxes, but as I said

before, and I will say it again, how many times have we seen licences, fees,

permits doubling, tripling, quadrupling? That is where they are getting their

extra revenue. We also know there are fees and permits. Fees are now charged for

various permits and licences that were never charged before. That is where they

are getting the extra money, and they are saying there are no new taxes. They

are doing through the back door what they haven't got the guts to do through

the front door

Now, let's look at this increase in spirits or liquor or whatever the case

may be. It is on certain products. I believe some of the products, wine for one,

will go up. We know there is an increase in consumption of wine in the Province

over the past few years, and some of the prices will be increasing there, but in

the Budget the minister requires the liquor board to come up with an extra $10

million. The minister was trying to say that it is because of the product, an

extra price on the product. I don't care where it is coming from. If it is

coming out of my pocket and out of the pockets of the people of this Province it

is an indirect tax, again doing through the back door what they will not do

through the front door.

Also what we see here is the point that was made with respect to Newfoundland

Hydro. Some $86 million is going to come from Newfoundland Hydro. Where are they

going to get the money, I ask you, Mr. Speaker? If they charge it out to

Newfoundland Power, where is Newfoundland Power going to get the money? So I

will say that the Opposition Leader, the Member for Kilbride, was right on when

he said that the electricity rates will go up, and you will probably see them go

up later on in the summer when they are not so noticeable. Next winter -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I interrupt

the speech being given by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, my critic, on

matters of finance in this House, because his role and his duty is important. As

a matter of fact, it is so important that I believe it would be his best wish

that he be accurate in the statements that he makes and the allegations that he

puts forward. His assertion that a price in liquor products is an indirect tax

is factually, with great respect, incorrect. The fact of the matter is if

products that they are purchasing for resale increases, the price of their

product on the shelf must also increase. This happens regularly with respect to

that product or any other product.

It is not unlike the gasoline issue, Mr. Speaker. We do not get one dime

extra on our gasoline tax because the price of petroleum product goes up. It is

simply driven 100 per cent by market forces. So I think the record should be

clear, and I am sure the hon. member would want to be completely accurate in

suggesting that the price in product has nothing to do with taxes, tax rates,

tax changes or tax increases. It is a function of the marketplace in terms of

the price of product increasing that causes a price increase to occur on their

product on the shelf.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

What the minister is not saying, though, is that if the price of the product

goes up the taxes go up with it. I find it kind of ironic, too, that there are

over 500 products going up at the same time. How would you explain that, I say

to the Minister of Finance? The bottom line is this. The liquor board has been

told to come up with an extra $10 million this year and you cannot tell me in

this House - you might tell me and you might believe it, but I cannot understand

how they can come up with extra $10 million and not pass it on to the consumer.

The same thing with Newfoundland Hydro. They are coming up with $9 million that

Hydro is going to have to guarantee, and $76 million from Hydro on their

dividends.

Now, if Hydro has to come up with this kind of money, $85 million this year,

I do not care what you say to me, I really don't, but I am telling you that if

they have to come up with $85 million extra this year over what they produced

last year, it is being passed on to the consumer. You can say it is a tax or you

can say whatever it is, I could not care less. It is extra money that is going

to be coming out of the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by

this fall, and more than likely it is going to be starting in late summer when

it will not be that noticeable, I say to the minister. We shall see, because

more often than not, on this side of the House when we make these announcements

or projections, we are right. How often has the critic for health made

statements in this House of Assembly over the past number of years and how often

has he been right? All the time. I have yet to know him to be wrong on an issue.

I had a few words on the Budget here the other day. I'm going to just do a

quick review of what I said the other day, then I am going to go on to other

issues. I spoke about the fiscal performance of the Province and the comments

that the minister made and the trickery that is being used in this Budget. We

talked about the $30 million contingency reserve and how that is being

maintained this year. If you really put that into the proper perspective, if

they are saying they have $34 million - according to the government's figures,

not ours - in actual fact, they only have a $4 million deficit, because that $30

million is there to use. If they do not use it, they can utilize it to help

balance the Budget at the end of the year.

One point I am going to get into down the road - and the Auditor General

brought this up - is the abuse, I say to the Minister of Finance, of the special

warrants. They are using very clever tactics with respect to the special

warrants, I can guarantee you that. I have the figures here. I will get into

that later on and hopefully I will not forget about it. Then again, they said

there are no new taxes in this Budget. I have a lot to say, I say to the

Minister of Finance. I am saying a lot more about this Budget, I say to the

Minister of Finance, than he has said about it and that he is going to say about

it, I can tell you that.

MR. MATTHEWS: It took me an hour and three minutes to deliver. It is

taking you about three times that long so far to say nothing about it.

MR. J. BYRNE: I expect what you should do is get Hansard - I have it

here- and go read it. You might be able to learn something, I say to the

minister. You might really find out what is going on in the Province with

respect to this. I hope one of these days I will meet the people that put the

Budget together for you, the people that crafted it for you and who worded it

for you. They did a very good job, I compliment then on that, because what you

are saying you are getting in this Budget and what we are getting are two

different things.

I have the minister's attention now. I want to tell him one item just to

show you how smooth they are. It is with respect to education. Here they say: In

excess of 300 teaching positions will be reinstated for September 2000 at an

annual cost of more than $15 million -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have his attention now, Loyola. I'm making a point to

him. I'm trying to show him the trickery and how it works, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I would not use that word.

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of personal privilege.

My colleague the Minister of Education as she was leaving mentioned that the

word being used to describe the Minister of Finance was "trickery."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would have to ask the Speaker to rule as to whether or

not it is parliamentary language to refer to another hon. member as being a

person who is using trickery, or engaged in activities that hinge on trickery,

or to otherwise make reference, in any oblique way, to the suggestion that the

hon. member might be trickeryizing' anything that he has put forward in

this House. I am not a trickeryizer' and I do not use trickery. I do not

use slight of hand. What you see is what you get, and what you have gotten are

the facts: a wonderful budget delivered to a wonderful province, accepted

royally by wonderful people because they recognize we have listened to the voice

of the people in our exhaustive consultative process.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member want to speak to the point of

privilege?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for a start he changed his story midstream, if

you pay attention to what he did. He got up and he said that I was describing

him as trickery. I did not use that, saying the minister - whatever words he

used as trickery. It doesn't make sense to me. What I said was what was being

used in this Budget - the trickery of this Budget, I said, Mr. Speaker. Surely I

can refer to an object being used as trickery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. members to restrain themselves while the Chair rules.

The Chair has listened with interest to the eloquent dissertation put forward

by the minister that his personal privileges in this House had been abused by

the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis. I have to confess that for the first

minute-and-a-half of his presentation he almost had me convinced, but the last

minute-and-a-half he lost me completely.

I have listened closely to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis. I did hear

him reference the Budget, and there was some suggestion that everything was not

untoward with regards to it. I would ask him to refrain from using that term,

"trickery," but certainly there was no reference to the hon. minister

himself that he in any way used trickery in crafting it.

I think earlier in the hon. member's presentation he already said that the

document was probably crafted by someone else and only delivered by the

minister.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

What I will do is try and refrain from using the word trickery, but I would

use the description slight of hand budget. How is that? It was a good ruling

against the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: The Speaker is going straight to the Supreme Court after

this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member doesn't want any more members standing on points of

privilege, or points of order, I would ask him to refrain from using

"slight of hand" as well, because that (inaudible) unparliamentary.

MR. J. BYRNE: If I am clear in what your ruling is, I didn't use word

trickery to describe the minister, I used it to describe the Budget and that is

okay. As long as I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm speaking. Sit!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the point of information is this. It is legitimate to use the word

trickery. Trickery has been ruled in the House of Commons as to be acceptable;

it is ruled parliamentary to use the word trickery. In making reference to any

of the debates, it has not indicated that trickery is in the list of

unparliamentary ones. Trickery has been an accepted one, according to Beauchesne,

490. It has been ruled parliamentary to use that I just want to say that for

the record. It doesn't list it under the ones that are unparliamentary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of order.

I don't wish to question Your Honour's judgement. As a result of your

most recent ruling, I would be inclined to think that you are going straight

from here to the Supreme Court after your term of office. The term slight of

hand, I understood that as a suggestion that the minister had particular skills

that are attributable to a magician. I would have thought that the Minister of

Finance would have been complimented by such a suggestion coming from the Member

for Cape St. Francis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will rule on the point of order. The Chair would like to recognize

the contribution of hon. members and thank them for their information. The Chair

will take these matters under advisement.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: To you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Just in response to the representation by the hon. the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Mr. Speaker. While I would be rather

accepting of the proposition that he might want to be in some way complimentary

to my genius, I am less understanding and accepting of the concept that he is in

fact sincere in putting forward that proposition.

If in fact the hon. member is really sincere in suggesting that I am a

magician, then I would ask him, probably after my long political career is done

in many years' time, to point me to some area where I might be able use my

expertise to further enhance my ability to put bread on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

To that so-called point of order.

If the minister had been listening to me the other day when I was speaking, I

said what he should do after he gets out of politics - I found a job for him -

is go to Las Vegas and look for a job in the casinos down there. Figure that

out.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) would be what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you hear what he said? I didn't say it.

MR. TULK: I wonder if you could stop this nonsense and (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a few minutes on special

warrants and the abuse of this administration of the special warrants. Special

warrants are supposed to be utilized by government in emergency situations. It

is something that was not in the previous Budget, in the current Budget, and if

they have an emergency situation they will use special warrants. I find this

kind of ironic. I am going to make a point now - I have to smooth my hair back -

that in 1997.... Listen to this. I say to the Minister of Finance, you should

pay close attention to this.

MR. MATTHEWS: I'm coming right back. Would you like to take a break,

because I have a meeting.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can't take a break. I have to keep going because they

will close her down on me.

Total special warrants for 1997 - now just listen - was $75,700,000. You

would think, if you have special warrants, that they would be utilized

throughout the year; but the special warrants - issued in March of each year.

Just listen to this. In 1997, the total for the year was $75,700,000 and in

March there was $75,700,000 - in one month. Now does that make sense to you, Mr.

Speaker? Seventy-five million, seven hundred thousand in one month. The full

amount that they utilized in that year was issued at the end of March. Why? You

have to ask the question: Why would they utilize all the money at the end of the

year? Because they are playing with figures in the Budget, the bottom line of

the Budget. If you have that kind of money left over at the end of the year, of

course there would be a surplus. What are they saying to the people of the

Province when they do that? They are trying to give the indication that when

they come out with the next Budget they will need all this kind of money.

In 1998, total special warrants for the year, $88,601,000; but in the month

of March, $34,567,000. That is almost 50 per cent in one month. Obviously,

numbers are being juggled around, jumbled around and what have you, to suit the

financial ends of the administration.

In 1999 - now this is ridiculous -

MR. BARRETT: How many zeros are in that, Jack?

MR. J. BYRNE: We will buy you a book now to keep you busy, I say to the

Member for Bellevue. Do you have any books over there with pictures in them for

him? I say to the Government House Leader, can you get a book over there with a

lot of pictures in it and give it to him to keep him busy? Because I am sure he

can't do very much reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't mind. I don't mind getting up at all. That's

no problem.

Mr. Speaker, listen to this one. This is absolutely ridiculous, I say to the

Member for Terra Nova; he is paying attention. In 1999 there were fourteen

special warrants issued. The total special warrants for the year, for the full

year, was $136,051,900 but in the month of March, out of that $136 million, the

last month of the year, there was $123 million in special warrants. Obviously,

if anybody cannot see what is going on here they are literally blinded to the

actual reality.

If that $136 million had not been spent, they would actually have - or the

$123 million in the last month - they could have a surplus by the end of the

year of $123 million. Then, what would that look like when they are putting

together the budget for the next year? Do you see what is happening? Trickery!

What I said before. That is what is going on here.

The Auditor General makes this statement, and I will read it. It says,

"Figure 2 provides information on each of these special warrants and

indicates that $95 million of the $136.1 million were, in my opinion, issued in

contravention of the Financial Administration Act in that they were not

urgently required."

As I said earlier the special warrants had to be urgently required for an

emergency and what have you, Mr. Speaker. She is saying here that $95 million of

$136.l million were in contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

Now, in my mind, if it is in contravention of the Financial Administration

Act, have their laws been broken here? Has the government actually broken the

law? Some people may think that is stretching it because it is so general a

statement, I suppose, and when you come to special warrants it is general, but

when you are looking at almost $124 million out of $136.l million being spent in

the last month, one would tend to believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is something

funny going on with the special warrants and they are being abused.

As a matter of fact, the Public Accounts Committee had hearings on this some

time ago. The report is not completed yet, but we will be presenting that to the

House of Assembly hopefully this spring.

Also, under the Department of Finance with respect to special warrants, the

Auditor General says this here, "Since the Corporation did not use or

require the $5 million approved by special warrant on 12 March 1999 during the

1998-99 fiscal year, there was no urgent requirement for the $5 million."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is that the government is coming out

and saying we need $5 million, the Department of Finance, an urgent situation,

in the middle of March, and it is not utilized. As a matter of fact, she says,

"Therefore, I conclude that there was not urgent requirement of the $5

million for the special warrant.", in the first place.

That is rampant throughout this report. Also, she talks about March 12, under

the Department of Health and Community Services, that $58 million was approved,

but it was not spent in that period, so where was the urgency?

What we are saying here is when they are using special warrants in the last

month of the year, the fiscal year end, basically, and they do not utilize it in

that month, really what should be happening is that money that was taken out -

the millions, the tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions - should be put

into the upcoming budget. That is where we are getting into the problem that I

have with it, that they are playing with numbers, cooking the books, I suppose

is the right terminology, cooking the books to make it look something that it is

not.

Also, there is a lot of stuff here with respect to the special warrants, and

it says, "Impact on Government's Financial Results." I am going to

read right straight from the Auditor General's report, if I can. It says,

"Figure 3 clearly shows that since 1992-93 fiscal year, Government's

actual cash surplus or deficit before special warrants was always more

favourable than the cash surplus or deficit projected in the cash budget which

was approved by the House of Assembly."

What she is saying is that the special warrants are having a direct result on

the bottom line of the budget of each upcoming year. It says, "It is my

opinion that $95 million of the $136.l million of the special warrants issued in

1998-99 did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act ..."

Listen to this now; it is what I said earlier, "...Government would have

reported a cash surplus of $105.1 million compared to the $10.1 million that was

actually reported."

So, if they were not putting all this money at the end of the year into the

special warrants just to utilize them and to use up the money - and, by the way,

I saw that happen similar in the government departments and I would image it is

still happening in some. I can only speak when I worked with the government back

about seventeen or eighteen years ago. What you would see when March month would

roll around, if a department or if any sub-committees of the department in the

regions or whatever, had X amount of dollars left towards the end of the year,

they would make sure they had that money spent; because if they didn't, they

felt they would lose it in the upcoming budget. That is the same thing that is

going on here. The government, on the end of it, are wasting money. It has been

proven out in the Auditor General's report that they are doing this.

We have the government then coming on and trying to give impression often, a

few years ago, that they had balanced budgets when, in fact, they are using this

$30 million contingency fund every year over the past number of years since this

administration - I think probably since 1996, at least 1996 - the $30 million

contingency fund, utilized by government for whatever they want. When they say

they have a $10 million surplus, it is actually $40 million. If they are saying

that they are having a $10 million or $20 million deficit, the difference is

there all the time. Again, I think that this government is playing with figures

all the time.

I have a lot to say here yet today, I can guarantee you that. I am trying to

find some of my notes here now, Mr. Speaker, so just bear with me for a second.

I am going to refer back to the federal Budget and the Canadian Health and

Social Transfer payments. As I said before, we have a Premier of this Province

who sat around the Cabinet table when they changed the policy on it, and changed

it to a per capita basis. That was having a major negative impact upon this

Province. We only have 500,000 people in the Province and, if you compare that

to Quebec or Ontario, what are we actually going to get? We saw over the past

few years, because of that, $125 million per year cut to health care in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On top of that we have seen 40,000 people, over the past few years, leave

this Province. That again is impacting upon how much money we receive from

Ottawa. We have our critic for health, in the past few years, speaking to the

Minister of Health and to the Premier, and bringing up questions as he did

today, many, many times. What do we get in return? Fearmongering, fearmongering,

fearmongering, and that we are trying to create problems in the health care that

are not really there.

Then, all of a sudden, when it is convenient for the Premier to come out and

say: A major crisis in the health care in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Why did he say that all of a sudden? Because, he needed an issue. He

needed a national issue. We had the Premiers and the governments from across the

country saying to the federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, that we need

more money pumped into health care in the country. What did we get in the

federal Budget? Very, very little. Not even enough to handle the deficit of the

health care.

We had the St. John's Health Care Board, the Chairman in there, saying that

we needed $100 million into the system and he wouldn't even waste one penny of

that. I think we are getting something like $30 million or $40 million.

Now, as I said, the Premier is up, going to be the Captain Canada for health

care in the Province. Where was he when we needed him, when they were making the

changes around the Cabinet table, when he was the Minister for Newfoundland and

Labrador in that Cabinet? You didn't hear a lot then. Now, he has national

aspirations. Now he wants to go on to Ottawa and he is going to try to be the

hero for health care in the Province.

Also, as I said with respect to that federal Budget, if I was living in

Ontario today, if I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Ontario, I think

I would be pretty happy with respect to that Budget; but the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are certainly not doing anything with it.

The infrastructure that the federal government is putting forward this year

for Newfoundland on a per capita basis to Newfoundland and Labrador, $2 million.

Here, this little Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are putting in some

$20 million ourselves - the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - for

infrastructure in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all Ottawa is

going to give us is $2 million. It is a joke. It really is a joke.

Post-secondary education, what did we get in post-secondary education on a

national level from Ottawa? Nothing. They said they were going to do something,

but we really got nothing in the long haul. All we got was some talk about tax

exemptions. How many people are going to be able to take advantage of these tax

exemptions? We are talking about students in university. Really, Mr. Speaker.

They probably don't even make enough money to get up to the amount of money

that would be required, the base, to take advantage of the tax exemptions.

You know, you are talking about a government here in Newfoundland of the same

stripe, by the way, as the government in Ottawa, and they are getting kicked

like this; but I will tell you what is going on here now with respect to Ottawa.

Really, this is pretty disheartening, I suppose, and it is hurtful. We have a

government who, I am thinking, are trying to position themselves - and they have

billions of dollars in surplus; they have billions in the EI fund. They have

something like $8 billion this year - they are saying they have in surplus, if

my figures are correct - and it could very well be double that; I don't know.

They are lining themselves up for an election. We won't give it to them

now. We are seeing indications of this. We have the Premier and other Premiers

getting together and demanding from Ottawa that they put more money into health

care. They went up and had a meeting with the Finance Minister, talked about it,

and he wants the Premiers to go back to their provinces and do a study to see if

there is any wastage in the system. Come back to him again and he will have

another look at it. What is really happening here is only a delaying tactic, I

say to you, delaying.

When an election call comes, or shortly before, we are going to see money

pumped into the health care system into this country. We are going to see money

pumped into the infrastructure in this country, but what happens in the

meantime? This is a very serious point. What happens in the meantime? The people

who are sick today, if we are waiting another year, or fourteen or fifteen

months before an election is called, or eight months, what happens between now

and then with the people who are actually sick, who are in a life and death

situation? I think that is cruel and I suppose you can refer to it as unjust to

the people of the country. That is the way I feel.

Another issue - we will move on here - with respect to the Budget: A couple

of weeks ago before the Budget came down, we saw the Premier attend a school

function where they were going to announce $500,000 for our School Lunch

Program. What did he do? He went to the school - and this is his typical

fashion, his typical way, his big way - oh, this is such a good program, I am

going to put $1 million into it. Not criticizing the $1 million; it might need

$2 million, it might need $5 million. Great, I would love to see it, but the

problem is the way he did it. How can he come up with $500,000 there, $1 million

there, $2 million there, just off the cuff, and be responsible to the budget as

it has been set out? To me, it's not logical. How does the Minister of Finance

deal with that kind of action - irresponsible action from my perspective?

Also, when it came to the Budget, they are talking about a small deficit of

$34 million. Well, if you look at the overall picture, $34 million is not a lot

when you compare it to $3.7 billion or whatever the case may be, but $34 million

is a lot of money. What he is not doing, and what the Minister of Finance is not

doing, and what the people of this Province do not see on a budget day, is this:

the boards, the various board, the school boards, the health care boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hurry up, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: You only have another two hours of this.

Health care boards, the school boards, as I said earlier, and the

municipalities. The money that these boards are responsible for, the debt of

these boards, are not factored into the Budget. So, when they say they have a

deficit of $34 million, the actual fact then, if you look at the municipalities

- the debt of the municipalities alone would throw that so far out of kilter it

is unreal.

They have Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Newfoundland Hydro, the town

councils, as I said earlier, the health care boards. The deficit this year for

the health care boards in Newfoundland is somewhere over $40 million. That is

not factored in there. So, in actual fact, as I say before, when we are looking

at the Budget we are not getting a true picture.

Another point that needs to come up and is not factored in here - and I have

a list here somewhere and I am going to see if I can dig it out here now - is

the court cases over the years. I want to talk a bit about the various court

cases that this administration and the previous administration have been into.

Many of the ministers on that side of the House now - and we saw an example the

other day of the Government House Leader trying to stick it back to the sitting

administration, to 1996-1997, when the Premier of the day - he has to take

responsibility. He was there back in 1993, 1989 -

MR. TULK: Who, me?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. You were just about up in the galleries. I know you

were not a minister, but you were part of that administration and whatever they

said you agreed with. Whatever they said, he agreed with.

MR. TULK: Jack, you know the difference of that.

MR. FITZGERALD: No he didn't, Jack.

MR. TULK: There's my buddy up there. That's my buddy.

MR. J. BYRNE: I stand corrected. The Member for Bonavista South said no,

he didn't agree with everything. Didn't he? Okay, well maybe I wasn't

paying close enough attention to him because he was so far back in the nosebleed

section that I wasn't paying attention. He was up in the gallery almost; but

he was there and theoretically, I suppose, if he was in strong objection to what

they were doing he would have sat as an Independent. He may say he disagreed

with them, but his actions said something different, I say to the Government

House Leader.

When you see this administration, they are always trying to deflect, trying

to twist, and all that kind of stuff, especially when we get up on this side of

the House and ask questions, especially when we do that. Oh, boy, they are so

good at it; but they can't because we have the Minister of Finance there, who

was there then, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Tourism. Who else was

over there back then? They are still here today so they have to take

responsibility for their actions, their court actions, the decisions they made

around the Cabinet table and the impact that is having today.

I am going to bring up something which that crowd over there likes to throw

at us all the time, but it is so ridiculous and insignificant when you compare

it to the abuse and wastage of this administration. They talk about the Sprung

Greenhouse. At least when that was around it created 300 jobs for two or three

years. Now, if I was here I probably would not have agreed with the magnitude

but we have to try new things. I think the Minister of Tourism would agree that

we have to try new things, I would think, but it depends on the magnitude of how

we do it. He is nodding his head in agreement. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

Let's make a comparison. Twenty-four million dollars, he said, 300 jobs

created for two or three years; and look at the taxes and the business that spun

off. Now I am going to start talking about millions and millions, tens of

millions, twenties of millions and more, that this administration has wasted and

not created one job. The most recent, of course - and I will probably try to

work backwards but I will not go back into Smallwood's time, like this crowd

tries to do for us. I will just go back to this bunch.

The Auditor General's report, in one department, $60 million; in one

department over the past number of years. I am talking about how much money has

been wasted over the years by this government and not create one job.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: In the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, $60

million. I am not talking about the money that was put out there and there were

actual jobs created. I am talking about the $60 million that cannot be

collected.

MR. TULK: But it created jobs.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, but it is money wasted; it is $60 million we are not

getting back.

The Government House Leader is trying to be confusing again. What we are

saying is this: the money was passed out but it was supposed to come back to the

government. It did not come back, so it did not create - that $60 million is

gone.

I am going to talk on that later on. I will get into more detail later on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not now.

That is that. Now, let's look at the call centers. How many millions - are

there any pictures in that book you are reading over there, I say to the

Minister of Tourism?

Call centres. Millions of dollars out the windows. They were going to create

thousands of jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not likely, but millions of dollars gone. I remember

the Premier being here - now, this is not a call centre, this is the tee shirt

factory, the designer clothing industry he was going to create in the Province.

A lot like Joey Smallwood with his big ways and big ideas, with the hockey stick

factories and the chocolate factories and the rubber boot factories and what

have you. He was going to have this designer clothing factory in the Province,

with thousands of jobs. Then all of a sudden it was going to be tee shirt

factory in the Province. What did it end up being, Mr. Speaker? A big, fat zero,

nothing, and that is typical of the Premier and this Administration.

I would like to have it here but I don't have it in my hand, but I noticed

today that the Minister of Tourism made a Ministerial Statement about "The

Rooms." That in itself is a controversy, "The Rooms," the

heritage and the museum and everything here in St. John's. That in itself is a

controversy.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are against that?

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen, the minister is just like the other minister. The

Minister of Tourism is trying to put words in my mouth. He should be patient and

let me say what I am going to say. There are two or three points I want to make.

We have this $40 million, give or take. My concern is this. If we have the

same situation go on there as we did with Trans City Holdings, Mr. Speaker, if

you have the same situation happen there as we had with the ferry in Labrador -

the public tendering on this project, let's have a close look and see what is

going to happen. That $40 million could end up being $50 million, it could be

$60 million, if you go with the history of this Administration and with their

court cases. They are going to do something somewhere to see that their buddies

get the contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to address that. I want to get on this. You ask

me that in a few minutes, will you?

If they do what they have done in the past that they have a history for, the

reason why they tore apart the public tender act a couple of years ago, is they

went to court and found out that they were in contravention of the public tender

act and ended up having to pay out millions of dollars for not properly

following the public tender act. I'm predicting the same thing is going to

happen with that ferry in Labrador. When the judge the other day came down and

said, basically, that: You have every right to take this court. I can't turn

it over because it will affect the services of the people in the area. That may

be a factor, but he awarded court costs. They didn't have to pay that. He

basically told them: Listen, you have a good case, take it to court, a civil

action. What will be the bottom line? How much? We don't know.

With respect to "The Rooms," which I'm on about, the point I'm

making is if they put it out to tender and they don't follow the tendering act

we could end up paying tens of millions more than we should be paying.

With respect to the controversy on that, $40 million dollars -

AN HON. MEMBER: What controversy?

MR. J. BYRNE: The controversy across this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader just got up and praised it up (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He got up and said it is a nice looking facility.

MR. SULLIVAN: To preserve our culture, I said.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, to preserve our culture and what have you, but then

again there are people out there - I am not saying this is me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Tourism.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) preserving our culture and our heritage. What

we have now is not adequate, I will admit that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doesn't that do it?

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm for that too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: See, the Minister of Tourism is panicking again, trying to

put words in my mouth. I never said I was against it. I am going to try to

express to him some of the concerns expressed to me so he can see what some of

the people in the Province are saying. They are saying this: Forty million

dollars. Yes, it is something that it would be nice to have, but we have to look

at priorities. Some people out there would like to see $40 million go into

health care. Some people would like to see $40 million going into education.

Some people outside of the City of St. John's, in rural Newfoundland, would

like to see it going to dialysis machines. That is what they are talking about,

that is what they are saying. I heard it here in St. John's. I attended a

public meeting not long ago with forty or fifty people there on a different

issue all together. They came to me and said: Jack, $40 million. It is something

we would love to have, it would be a great thing to have, but I do not know if

we really want to put that kind of money into that when we need hundreds of

millions dollars in health care. I am only expressing to you what was expressed

to me.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I never said I was one way or the other. I am only

expressing to you some of the concerns that were expressed to me, I say to the

Minister of Tourism. You should take that into consideration. That is all I am

saying to you. That is simple, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister wants to ask me where I am on it.

MR. FUREY: Never mind what other people think. What do you think?

MR. J. BYRNE: I think we should have our priorities straight. We should

put our priorities in place. Maybe it could be done over time. Maybe instead of

putting $40 million into it this year it could be $20 million. Right? So they

have to set their priorities straight. That is what they have not been doing.

The only priorities this Administration has had in the years is: Take care of my

buddies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is, but it is all degrees, I would say. It is not too

hard to confuse you, I say to the Minister of Tourism over there looking at and

reading a book, and the only thing that is in it is pictures. A comic book, by

the way, I think, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if it is Superman. Captain Canada,

that is the one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alley Oop.

MR. J. BYRNE: Alley Oop.

AN HON. MEMBER: What time do you finish, Jack?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another hour and forty-four minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, tell us where you stand on "The Rooms."

MR. J. BYRNE: I stand on the roof of "The Rooms." By the way,

"The Rooms" are in Logy Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: What difference does it make? When you point to that side

they are all the same anyway, so one for all. Do you know what I mean? It does

not make any difference. When I point over there (inaudible) be talking to you.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Sir Gisborne of Bellevue,' what are you saying now? Is

Whitbourne in your district? Blaketown? Are you getting a new school in

Blaketown?

MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, the one in Ferryland started two years after that was

supposed to start. That is covered in now up in Ferryland.

MR. J. BYRNE: I know, it is shocking. Don't get me going on the school

in Pouch Cove, because I was speaking to the Deputy Minister of Education this

morning on that. It is absolutely ridiculous. Two years ago they approved the

funding. That will tell you how efficient this crowd is. Two years ago they

passed the funding, under the former, former Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you (inaudible) the other government you could not get

any money.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I was not here then.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, what?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do the what? The break?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know what you are saying. What did he say?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am interested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I will tell the Government House Leader this: there is a

cafeteria downstairs.

MR. TULK: What about it?

MR. J. BYRNE: What are you doing over there now? Look at his mouth going.

What is he chewing on over there, boy? There is a cafeteria downstairs. How

thick are some of these people around, I do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got a cud.

MR. J. BYRNE: He got a cud. He is chewing his cud. That is about it.

Listen here. Do the government want to hear what they are doing wrong and how

they can straighten out this Province? Do they?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know you are. I appreciate that.

The ferry in Labrador. How much more are we going to have to pay when that

goes to court? Obviously it is going to go to court if they award that contract.

We had the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation up the other day

trying to answer some questions here, trying to skirt around it, and he would

not answer the questions when he was saying it was in court. It finally came out

that we were right again.

How much money has this government wasted since I have been here, since 1993,

on Hydro? How much money did you waste on Hydro, legal fees, you guys over

there? The last count we had was somewhere - legal fees and accounting fees,

paying out to more of your buddies I suppose - near $10 million, the last I

heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is why (inaudible). I say to the Minister of

Fisheries, I will tell you.

MR. EFFORD: Who would you pay it out to?

MR. J. BYRNE: Typical of the Minister of Fisheries. Who would you pay it

out to, he said. I will tell you what we would pay that to. (Inaudible) the

Tories brought in the public tender act, why they brought in the Public Service

Commission. You guys destroyed it. We were being fair to the people of the

Province. Everybody had an opportunity. Not with this crowd, Mr. Speaker. That

is who we would pay it to, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

Government House Leader, you are next. What do you want?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What? One firm?

Ten million smackeroos gone out the window. He has $60 million from the

Department of Development and Rural Renewal, $10 million from Hydro, that is $70

million; the ferry up there we don't know; the call centers....

This government is looking for money and they say they don't raise taxes.

As I said before, every licence, fee and permit has increased. The Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation knows what I am saying is right.

The North West River - I remember when we talked about, in this House of

Assembly, our policies. In the last election we had o