March 22,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 2

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the first opportunity available to the House to

extend our congratulations to the Honourable James Gushue on his appointment as

the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, the highest judicial position in the

Province. Its occupant also holds an important role in the structure of

government; as the Chief Justice he is also the Administrator, the person who

represents the Crown in the Absence of the Lieutenant-Governor.

Chief Justice Gushue has been a member of the Court of Appeal

for twenty years. He is a distinguished legal scholar. He is certainly well

known to all members of the House, although I hasten to add he is known

principally, as should be the case, in his role as a judge. Members will recall,

for example, that indeed the Chief Justice was here, and was one of two judges

who administered our Oaths to us on Wednesday past.

I know that all members will join me in welcoming Chief

Justice Gushue's appointment.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, at this time as well to pay tribute to

the Honourable Noel Goodridge, the retiring Chief Justice. He is a distinguished

and widely respected jurist whose judgements are widely regarded as written

models of legal scholarship. On behalf of the House, and indeed on behalf of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I wish to thank him for his immense

contribution to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, a second statement at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave, or do we

want to have the Opposition respond?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just respond

on behalf of the Official Opposition to the ministerial statement congratulating

the Honourable James Gushue on his appointment. I'm sure he will bring to that

position the skill, wisdom and knowledge that he has imparted in his previous

role in the judiciary system. On behalf of the Opposition we also wish former

Chief Justice Noel Goodridge well in his future endeavours. Chief Justice

Goodridge was a person who imparted a very deep knowledge of legal matters and a

great impartiality, and he brought a great amount of respect to the system.

On behalf of the Opposition, we extend congratulations and

best wishes to both of those honoured gentlemen.

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

Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join

with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the new

Chief Justice of Newfoundland, Chief Justice Gushue. I had the opportunity to

personally congratulate him Wednesday, and I also want to join in paying great

tribute to the magnificent contribution of Chief Justice Noel Goodridge to the

Judiciary of Newfoundland. Having appeared before him on many occasions I am

well aware of his significant legal ability and the contribution he has made

over the years, and we thank him for that on behalf of the people of this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask members of the House, as well this

morning, to join me in paying tribute to a Newfoundlander who rendered long and

noteworthy service to our predecessors in the House of Assembly. I speak of Miss

Katherine Murphy, who died in recent days.

Ms. Murphy, known as "Kit" to generations of

parliamentarians, was the official stenographer (indeed she was the only one) in

the House of Assembly from the mid-1950s to her retirement in 1975. Of course,

none of us who sit in the House today were members of the Chamber at that time,

but she was, I am told, as important and as essential to the operation of the

House as was the Speaker of the day. She sat with her stenotype machine just

inside the bar of this House, originally in the old Chamber of the Colonial

Building and later on the 10th floor of this building. She recorded the debates

faithfully - I am told on occasion too faithfully, for the liking of members who

had perhaps misspoken themselves in this place. Word was that her transcription

services were even then word perfect.

Kit Murphy was universally liked; she always had a smile and

a kind word for all those who worked here. She lived a full and a happy life,

and with the leave of the House I ask that the Clerk be directed to send an

appropriate letter of condolences to her family, to extend our sympathy to them

and to mark, and this is important, her contribution to the work of the House of

Assembly, and indeed to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for many

years.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, on behalf of the Official Opposition send condolences

to her family. The staff in the House are a very integral part of the

functioning of this House, and I am sure the last thing members would want would

be to be misquoted, and to make sure that things are very accurately recorded.

While I did not know her personally I did know about her, and

once again I send condolences out to her family on this recent passing.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier.

The UI Program since 1991-92 has brought over $1 billion into

this Province and has been a significant part of the provincial economy.

In 1997-98, under the current structure without reform, there

will be $670 million coming into the Newfoundland economy. When the proposed

amendments to the UI Program, the new EI Program are in place, there will only

be $500-and-some million, over $100 million less coming into this provincial

economy.

I ask the Premier, what his government intends to do to

compensate for this drastic impact that these amendments will have on the

provincial economy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the

Opposition for his question and for his great interest in this important social

program which provides assistance to those in time of greatest need, a time when

they have been displaced from their otherwise regular form of employment, and I

want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we have already begun to make

unemployment insurance system is a reform that does not discriminate against

seasonal workers, specifically.

I have talked directly to the minister responsible and

indeed, on behalf of the people of the Province, talked as well to the Prime

Minister about seeking changes to the original reform bill, the proposed reform

bill put before Parliament, that would ensure that the original proposal with

respect to consecutive weeks of employment would be amended and the original

proposal with respect to the intensity rule on the maximal insurable earnings

for unemployment insurance is also amended.

Mr. Speaker, that representation is underway and we await the

final deliberation and decisions of the minister who is responsible in Ottawa.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the Premier if he has received any commitments

from the federal minister on those two aspects. The federal minister was quoted

as saying, on February 9: on the two issues of consecutive weeks and on

intensity rule, we are going to amend the legislation. Anybody who thinks I

can't change my mind is wrong.

I ask the Premier, has he received a firm commitment from the

federal minister that those changes on consecutive weeks and on the intensity

rule will be changed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is doing very good research and

I commend him for it. He has the exact quote of the federal minister in his

hands so he is as well aware, as I am, of the position of the federal minister.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been told that once the new system is fully

implemented in the year 2001-2002, insurance costs will be reduced by

approximately $2 billion per year, and out of that amount, $800 million will be

reinvested into employment benefits. I ask the Premier, how much out of that

$800 million will be reinvested here into employment in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is just now asking

whether or not we can expect further changes in the way in which the

unemployment insurance rules are going to apply in impact on seasonal workers,

and he is asking for a firm commitment that changes will be considered. He is

quoting directly himself from the newspaper the words of the minister who has

the responsibility in Ottawa, the hon. Doug Young. He is asking me whether I

concur with those words - I have said yes. I have gone on to indicate that the

matter is now with the minister and a decision will be forthcoming. Then, in

advance of having any chance to wait for that decision to come, he now wants to

know what the final shape of the program will be and what the final dollar value

of the reinvestment fund will be.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a

genuine concern in this regard but he knows also that he cannot have it both

ways. We have to wait for the outcome of his deliberation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On December 1, 1995, the program was released indicating how

much money would be reinvested, I say to the Premier. On December 2, the day

afterwards, the federal Finance Minister, Mr. Martin, speaking at the University

of Montreal, told Quebecers that they will receive $300 million out of that $800

million. Can't the Premier of this Province tell us, four months later, how much

this Province is going to receive?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is only the first day in

the first Question Period, and already, the Leader of the Opposition is getting

himself mightily exercised.

Now, I say to him with great respect that I understand his

interest in the matter and I assure him that his interest is certainly not

greater than the interest on this side of the House, but until the public

deliberations initiated by the federal minister are completed and until the

recommendations of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons - of which I

am sure my colleague opposite is aware, would not want to be asking questions

unaware of the full process - are completed, surely until that process is

completed, we ought to wait with some degree of patience for the final outcome

of those deliberations.

When those deliberations are finished and when all of the

fiscal impacts are known of changes to both the consecutive week rule and the

intensity rule, both of which I know the leader opposite knows, have a direct

fiscal impact on the program - the leader knows that - until that is done we are

not going to get the final analysis of what the reinvestment fund will be. We

have had some preliminary numbers. Let us wait for the changes that we have

asked for to be implemented. And I can tell you that if I have to make a choice

- I have no hesitation in saying this - between having an unemployment insurance

program that treats seasonal workers in a fair and reasonable fashion, or a

choice between gouging funds out of the pockets of seasonal workers in order to

create more make-work programs, I want the dollars to stay in the pockets of

seasonal workers, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition wants the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal minister could tell Quebecers on December 2 - and

the Premier just said he has preliminary figures. Will the Premier tell this

House what the preliminary figures are of that $800 million that is going to be

reinvested into employment efforts in this Province? I ask that of the Premier.

His officials in HRD have told me how much would be reinvested in Atlantic

Canada, and I ask the Premier how much is going to be reinvested in this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: If the Leader of the Opposition has a

number he wants to share with the House, I would be very glad to hear the

number.

The Leader of the Opposition is getting up in the most

transparent way possible, trying to ask a question, trying to work us all up

into a blind snit by saying that Quebec knows something that we don't know; the

most transparent kind of partisanship possible on the first day is rather

disappointing. I would ask him to put a more substantive question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is that the federal Finance Minister is

doing a better job of taking care of Quebec than you are taking care of

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: By the year 2001-2002 there will be $2

billion savings per year, and only $800 million will be reinvested. I ask the

Premier: The remaining $1.2 billion - does he agree that that $1.2 billion out

of those savings, paid for by employers and employee premiums, should be

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Leader of the

Opposition, who I am sure has a genuine interest in this matter, has not been

paying attention to what has been going on in the rest of the planet with

respect to the need for all of us in public life to set out reasonable

propositions based on reasonable expectations of what governments of any stripe

in any jurisdiction can afford. To simply stand there and to work up a sense of

some efficiencies, as if that were some kind of treacherous and traitorous act,

with great respect, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, is not being

reasonable.

Just yesterday, the former Minister of Finance of Canada, a

former Minister of Finance in this House, John Crosbie, speaking at a service

organization in this city, quoted today and covered today in today's Evening

Telegram , offered advice to the new Premier of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. And the Leader of the Opposition would be, obviously, given his

questions, alarmed at the nature of this advice. The former Conservative

Minister of Finance of Canada, former Conservative Minister of Finance in this

House, the godfather of the Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, the

guest speaker at the rally in Placentia, said that he would advise the Premier

of the Newfoundland and Labrador to behave in a fiscally responsible manner when

he takes on the role of Premier of the Province. And I suggest the Leader of the

Opposition should pay some attention to the speeches of the former Minister of

Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to

hear that our Premier is finally taking advice from somebody.

What I am talking about is taking a $5 billion surplus paid

by premiums, and at $20 billion in two years, paid by employers and employees,

deficits, when it is paid by hard-working people, and employers of these people.

Now, under the old system of UI, a new entrant could enter the workforce and

qualify for UI benefits if that person worked 300 hours. Under the new proposed

changes, a new entry into the workforce, or a re-entry, will now need 910 hours

to qualify, three times the amount under the old system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is now on a supplementary

and no

preambles are required.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier aware that it will now be practically

impossible for new entrants in seasonal industries and temporary workers to

qualify for UI under this new plan that he was a part and an architect of?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Leader

of the Opposition is, I am well aware of all of the proposals that affect the

welfare of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I will always do my

best to participate in public discussion in a reasonable and informed manner,

and represent the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

But I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition, the party opposite, it seems to

me, spent a great deal of money advertising, trying to hold forth this point of

view in the last election campaign, and the judgement of the people is reflected

in the seating arrangement of the House of Assembly.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is much public criticism regarding the UI program, so

much that the Federal Government has planned a $2 million public relations

campaign. The Telegraph Journal of St. John, New Brunswick, has indicated

that our Newfoundland and Labrador Premier will quickly endorse this new EI

program once the amendments are announced.

I ask the Premier: Will he assure this House that he will not

endorse any changes to the UI/EI program that is going to have a negative impact

on seasonal and temporary workers here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand up

and assure the Leader of the Opposition, who has in his hand a very obviously

effective piece of insider information, a piece of news from which paper was it?

The New Brunswick something or other?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Telegraph Journal.

PREMIER TOBIN: The Telegraph Journal , and this is

the basis of a profound and striking intervention in the House of Assembly that

should drive me to my knees and to make a declaration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have an informed discussion, a

reasonable discussion, when the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to have

one, about the importance of these programs and the impact on Newfoundland and

Labrador, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I know him to be an

intelligent man; I know him to be, I hope, a responsible man. I heard him say in

his response to the Throne Speech that he and the Conservative Party - I believe

this was near the end of his speech, and I can find Hansard and quote it back to

him if he has forgotten; I know he has not - believe in the importance of being

fiscally responsible, of providing an effective and reasonable Opposition, of

offering criticism where it was appropriate, but of taking a responsible stand

on the fiscal front. And I say to him, on this, the first day, at a time when

governments everywhere in Canada - everywhere in Canada - and you cannot sit

here in a bubble; this is not some glass ball pulled down over the Assembly in

Newfoundland that isolates us from the rest of the planet.

In the Legislature of Ontario, his colleague and friend, the

Conservative Leader of the Province of Ontario, needs armed guards to get into

the Legislature building because he is dealing with a deficit problem. Some

would say he is doing it well - perhaps you would - some would say he is not

doing it very well, but the reality is, he has to confront a deficit. In the

Province of Saskatchewan, an NDP Government is doing exactly the same thing. In

the Province of Quebec, a Separatist leader has come to learn that he cannot

just talk separation; he has to deal with the economy of the Province of Quebec.

Liberal, have had to deal with the same reality. The same is true here, and

simply sitting on that side of the House does not allow you to pull a stocking

down over your eyes and pretend that reality does not exist. The real job of

statesmanship and leadership is facing up to it and making positive and

constructive suggestions, not offering blind criticism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not received one answer to a question yet. He is

avoiding the answer, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask him this question: Under the Employment Insurance

program, the Federal Government will no longer purchase training courses and

programs in provincial or public or private institutions. That means students

now on fee-payer systems, who are in the middle of their training program, can

no longer receive the fee-payer system unless they re-qualify for UI. Many will

have to drop out of school. I ask the Premier: What alternatives will your

government develop to assist those who are left high and dry by this aspect of

the new EI program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition that the issue of providing proper training, effective and meaningful

training for our young people is one that he is right to be concerned with and

one that we indeed on this side are concerned with. I want to assure him - as I

know he and members opposite want to make a positive contribution to this

discussion of this problem and how we can use whatever scarce resources we have,

in an effective way - at the appropriate time and the appropriate occasion, he

will understand this government is only days old, will find an effective

parliamentary forum for discussion of this issue and allow for input,

suggestions and ideas from members, all sides of the House, as to how we, in the

face of changes that are coming, have been made and more that no doubt will come

from the federal side, can take up the responsibility with the scarce resources

we have of offering meaningful training with real prospects for work to our

young people. That is the most responsible answer I can give him. I give it to

him and I hope he will take up the challenge we offer.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Mines and Energy today.

Recently Newfoundland Power has asked, of the Public

Utilities Board, for a 4.9 per cent increase for electricity rates. Bearing in

mind that the government is new and that this is a new Question Period - as the

Premier has so put it - I ask the minister today, are there plans for the

government, this government, to look at that increase in view of the economic

times that Newfoundlanders face right now? In view of the fiscal restraint that

we are under, are there plans by this government and indeed the Cabinet, to look

at this power increase and to stop it from happening and if so, what is the

timetable for that happening?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the Public Utility Board

process for reviewing rate applications by a utility is a normal process. The

last time it occurred with Light and Power I believe was in the fall of 1991,

they have applied again. We, as a government, have named a consumer advocate to

represent the consumer interests and that consumer advocate will bring forward

appropriate experts to address this. We, as a government, do not interfere with

the operation of the Public Utilities Board, we will allow it to operate.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The rules and

regulations governing the Public Utilities Board have not changed since 1950. If

there is any time, Mr. Speaker, for this government to intervene in a process,

which it has not before and I understand that, but if there is any time for it

to intervene, I say it is now. Would the minister agree that the rate increases,

the differential rate increases will penalize the poor for using electricity,

will do nothing to provide them with the money they need to pay electric heat so

as to increase the companies competitiveness? Would also the minister agree, Mr.

Speaker, that this rate increase will force many people in this Province to dip

into their own food budgets in order to pay for lights?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we should not prejudge what the

Public Utilities Board will decide. After hearing the evidence of the company

and after hearing the evidence put forward by those who oppose what the company

is saying, we must wait and see what happens to that. We have many months to

wait. I understand right now that the hearing itself will not start until some

time in June, June 10. We have many months to wait to allow this process to be

done properly, to allow those who oppose the increase to properly put their

concerns. Let us not prejudge the results of those hearings.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and

Energy knows that Newfoundland Light and Power has been, since November,

preparing their case to put before the Public Utilities Board. A consumer

advocate, which this government eliminated altogether and now just reappointed

for this specific case, has only two months to prepare his case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member he is on a supplementary now. There

should be no

preamble.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

In terms of not prejudging, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say

to the minister and to the Premier that this is an issue that should not be

prejudged, I agree. This should be stopped right now and that no increase, zero

increases should be made. Will the minister commit to bring this to Cabinet and

report back to the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member from the

Opposition wants to cancel this objective independent process. I do not agree

with that. I think we need an objective independent process and allow it to

continue, allow it to hear the evidence from both sides. Let us let that process

occur.

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

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

CN announced on March 19 that its road cruiser service is to

be sold to Dorman Roberts Limited effective March 29, a week from today as a

matter of fact.

While we are told that the trans-Island bus service is not

guaranteed under our Terms of Union or otherwise, it is an important service to

students and low-income and fixed income Newfoundlanders who have come to depend

on it to get to school or to hospital and so forth.

Has this government been involved or sought to be involved in

discussions with the federal government or Marine Atlantic with respect to this

sale and if so, what has been its position on the privatization?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Province has been aware of,

involved, and fully informed of the process that has been taking place for the

past number of months with respect to the sale of the road cruiser service.

We have taken that position over this period of time, to

express the Province's concerns and interests and also be fully informed of this

process as it was taking place. We have expressed formally and informally our

support as a Province for the continuation of a trans-Island service, and we

have made those views known very clearly to the federal government.

For the information of the House and members however, we

should be aware that we are not a direct participant in this process. The

process is taking place between the federal government, CN Road Cruiser and the

provincial government is simply a participant to the extent that we have been

informed and expressing the interests of government in this matter and the

public in general; therefore, in saying that, we know at this point, that the

sale has now taken place effective as the member said on the 29th of March, and

that the company that has received the rights to operate the road cruiser

service, has agreed to offer this service, trans-Island, to continue the fares

and over the next period, to completely review the service, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm there

is nothing in the sale agreement between CN, Dorman Roberts Limited who, for a

while, seemed to have a problem realizing whether he owned the company, whether

he bought it or whether he didn't buy it, that would guarantee a continuation of

the present level of service. Will the minister acknowledge a statement by CN,

that ridership and profitability -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You used to be the minister, you are not any

more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: - that ridership and profitability will

obviously be the key factor in the determination of the service that will

ultimately be provided into the future?

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I didn't catch the

question, could I ask for a repeat?

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

South.

Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try it again.

If the previous minister will leave me alone, I will get through it this time.

Can the minister confirm there is nothing in the sale

agreement between CN and Dorman Roberts Limited, who thought he owned the

company and didn't own the company, and eventually I guess, he now owns the

company or somebody belonging to him does - that would guarantee a continuation

of the present level of service. Will the minister acknowledge a statement by

CN, that ridership and profitability will obviously be key factors in

determining the service that will ultimately be provided into the future?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this sale has taken place

between CN and Dorman Roberts Limited, the principal being Mrs. Roberts, and,

the sale, as in any business deal, is based on I am sure, financial factors,

viability, the provision of a service to a clientele that people want and are

willing to pay for. This is a business arrangement. It has received the approval

of both principals and at this point we presume that it will carry on and

provide the service that has been arranged for. I cannot think that there is any

other level of guarantee, and I had difficulty again interpreting the actual

question that was being sought here, so I can simply say that the deal as in any

business arrangement is based on certain business factors.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated in an

interview on Wednesday that any changes that are made after that time, once the

road cruiser service is privatized, will go through the Public Utilities Board

for full review and approval, so that is the kind of approval mechanism and

authority that will operate over it.

It was indicated on Thursday that another bus company

operating in the Province is seeking approval from the Public Utilities Board to

operate a competing trans-island bus service. Can the minister indicate to the

House the extent of the PUBs authority over the private busing operation, the

criteria the PUB will use in making decisions about trans-island bus services,

and whether she believes the trans-island bus service could find itself one day

in jeopardy as a result of events now unfolding?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board has a

role in regulating utilities and in this case the transportation system in this

Province. They undertake a full review of all factors associated with any

application. In this regard when there is an application for an additional

service, which the member referred to, the onus is on the intervener, in this

case the company who would be providing the existing service, to show that there

will be a negative impact on the service and on the provision of the service

throughout the Province so that the Public Utilities Board would be able to

judge whether or not to grant that application.

I have full confidence in the ability of the Public Utilities

Board, with its vast experience in this area, to be able to completely and

substantively review this and make the appropriate decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. On

Tuesday, February 20, the Department of Social Services notified Presentation

House, which is an emergency shelter for children, that funding would be

withdrawn as of March 31, 1996, and later they extended it to May 4.

Mr. Speaker, during its sixteen years in operation 1,681

children were offered quality care in a safe, loving, and nurturing family

oriented environment. Today there are eight children being offered an alternate

home at Presentation House. What is the rationale I ask the minister for closing

this emergency shelter at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank

the member for his question, and I would like to speak a little bit about the

whole concept of the movement of this Province in trying to put children in an

environment which is most suitable for their care and upbringing.

In relation to Presentation House there has been an effort to

move children out of that environment into a normal home, in a foster home. The

decision has been made based on the needs of children in this Province, and the

needs for this particular service, the Presentation House, has been declining,

and that is the basis for that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

The Chair would just like to take a minute to remind hon.

members that Question Period is governed by our Standing Order 31. In particular

I want to draw your attention to subsections (2), (3) and (4) which refer to the

use of telegrams, letters, news extracts, that are used sometimes here in

preambles.

Subsection (4) says: "Oral questions must not be prefaced by

the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or

preambles of any kind."

In (3): "In putting any oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered

nor any facts stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and

in answering any such question, the Minister is not to debate the matter to

which it refers."

Again, I remind hon. members that during Question Period we

have to be governed by our own Standing Orders and for them to keep this in mind

for further Question Periods.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 84 I would

normally give notice to the House to move that we propose a striking committee.

I've spoken with the Opposition House Leader, and I would like to ask leave,

Your Honour, to move that a committee of this House made up of the Government

House Leader - the Member for Bonavista North -, the Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune, the Opposition House Leader

- the Member for Waterford Valley -, and the Member for Bonavista South be a

striking committee to prepare and report within the first twenty sitting days

the members composing the various standing committees of this Legislature. I

would ask leave to move that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

Petitions

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

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

I have a petition today to the hon. House of Assembly of

Newfoundland in legislative session convened. The petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that:

whereas Newfoundland Power has

asked the Public Utilities Board to approve an increase in electricity rates;

and

whereas Newfoundland Power since it has a monopoly in the delivery of an

essential commodity in this Province is not at risk of becoming non-competitive;

and

whereas Newfoundland Power having made some $27.8 million in profit last

year is not in need of extra revenue from consumers; and

whereas Newfoundland

Power in passing corporate income tax increases on to consumers would be defying

government's intention of ensuring corporations dip into their own profits to

help bear the costs of public fiscal responsibilities; and

whereas the expanding

low energy use market is a situation, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland Power

helped create by advising consumers to reduce their demand for electrical

energy, and it would be wrong for the Public Utilities Board to try and alter

this situation by penalizing the consumers who heeded the company's advice; and

whereas many Newfoundlanders who do not use Newfoundland Power delivered

electricity to heat their homes instead use wood furnaces because they cannot

afford to do otherwise; and

whereas differential rate increases while penalizing

the poor for not using electric heat will do nothing to provide them with the

money they need to pay for electric heat so as to increase the company's

competitiveness but will force many to dip into their food budgets to pay for

the electricity they need for lights; and

whereas it is Newfoundlanders on low

and fixed incomes who use the smallest amount of electricity since they have the

fewest electrical run amenities and it is therefore the poor who will bear the

brunt of a differential rate increase; and

whereas Newfoundlanders suffering

from the fish resource crisis, the general economic downturn, and deep

government spending cuts cannot afford increases in essential commodities like

electricity at this time; and

whereas not having had a rate increase since 1992,

Mr. Speaker, is no justification for a rate increase today in 1996; therefore

your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do whatever is required to prevent an

increase in Newfoundland Power electricity rates at this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has caused a great deal of

discontent and a great deal of anger amongst the general public. I believe it is

an issue that affects constituents in all of our districts.

Last night I attended a public meeting - the Member for

Virginia Waters was there, the Member for St. John's South was there - where

many residents of the St. John's area came out to express their concern about

the rate increase that Newfoundland Power has asked for. A number of opinions

were offered. Certainly, one was that Newfoundland Power has made a $27.8

million profit this year - absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is profit that

they have made after the fact, after they have paid their shareholders their

proportion, or whatever their share on a return for that year was. But they feel

strongly, as I feel strongly, and as all of us should feel strongly, as

consumers of energy, as clients of Newfoundland Power, that any increase in

electricity rates at this time is unwarranted and should be stopped immediately.

Now, I understand the answers that the Minister of Energy

gave me today, when he talked about the Public Utilities Board operating at

arm's length; I understand that. I understand the history of the Public

Utilities Board, why it was set up. But I think the minister would agree that

the regulations governing the Public Utilities Board need an overhaul, and that

government, in this instance, as the public become more concerned and voice

their concern, as they begin to organize and petition government and petition

each individual member in this House, should stand up and say, on their behalf -

on their behalf - that any increase at this time, in the economic circumstances

that surround this Province, that surround each of our districts, in rural

Newfoundland more so than in urban Newfoundland, but still, any increase in a

basic commodity on which Newfoundland Power has a monopoly, is unwarranted, is

unjustified, and should be stopped right now. It is not necessary.

There are many points in the petition that I put forward

today, one dealing certainly with: `WHEREAS Newfoundland Light and Power has a

monopoly...' - I have just covered that. The profit margin that Newfoundland

Power has already made in the last fiscal year, already covered; but, Mr.

Speaker, it is important for us to realize -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today to rise and support my colleague on this

petition. I am surprised that there was no leave given to the member to clue up

his remarks on this very important issue, because it is an issue that is

spreading across the Province, and I speak on behalf of rural Newfoundland,

since my district is rural Newfoundland. I am supporting a petition that my

colleague put forward not just on behalf of the people he has on that petition

right now, because I can assure you in this House, that petition is going to

grow and mount in the next few days, and the people of this Province are going

to speak loud and clear on the ridiculous motion by this power company to

increase rates.

The truth is, at this time in particular in this Province,

people have turned to wood and oil to make it, to just make it, no more than

that, just make it through these very hard times. In my district, I, myself, and

my family have used wood in the past, over the years, to help ease the burden

sometimes of the fiscal restraints, as have many families in rural Newfoundland.

Very simply put, what we have here is a company with a

monopoly, who is in a war with another giant business of supporting, I guess,

fuel and so on -

AN HON. MEMBER: With a $27.8 million profit.

MR. SHELLEY: With a $27.8 million profit.

- who is in a war with the oil companies, who is going to

make the people who can least afford it, in this Province, not just help a

company that is ailing, but help a company now making profits to boost those

profits. How much more ridiculous can you get than that, Mr. Speaker, when a

company making $27.8 million a year in profits is now going to ask the people

who can least afford it - the people who are putting a junk of wood in their

stoves to make it through the night - is going to ask them to now pay up, and

not just pay up to save a company that is going under; we are not talking about

a company that is about to go under, we are talking about a company that has a

monopoly and is making a fair profit.

Mr. Speaker, what we really have before us here, although the

process - and we talked about process a couple of times here today. We all

understand the process with PUB and so on. What we are asking, as members in

this House, is that both on the Government and Opposition sides, we make sure

that we put our voices forward. And we will continue to do that in this House

over the next few days and months on behalf of many people. And there is a

ground swell starting - I can tell the House this - and many of the members know

that, that many people are starting to say this is ridiculous. We must put our

voices forward. Yes, the process must go on - PUB must go through their process,

but we have to say, as members of this House, on both sides, and as government,

that we do not accept that, and we should voice our opinions loud and clear.

Mr. Speaker, over the next few days, I would - the Premier

has already alluded a few times to a co-operation of members in this House. I

invite any members on the opposite side to stand in their place and also support

petitions that will be coming, as we all know, Mr. Speaker - in this House,

stand as a representative of people, especially the rural MHAs in this House,

who we know probably rely on wood and oil more than people in any other part of

the Province, even the more urban centres of the Province.

I know that some of the hon. members on the opposite side

were at one of the meetings last night. These meetings will continue around the

Province. The petitions will continue around the Province. All we are asking of

any member here in the House, is to yes, let the process go on but make sure you

let your voice be loud and clear for people who have elected you just a short

time ago. You have to represent those people who are in a pinch right now, being

squeezed and very simply, Mr. Speaker, being asked by this profitable monopoly

in this Province to help them, not just to maintain, but to boost their profits.

Mr. Speaker, no Newfoundlander should stand for that, no

representative in this House should stand for that, although the process goes

on. We should each and every one of us in our place take the turn to stand and

to support the people who are asking us to stand on their behalf. I am sure over

the next days and months that members on both sides of the House will receive

petitions, will receive phone calls, will be asked to attend meetings and so on.

So it is just a matter of speaking up on behalf of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with what the

hon. member just said. Those who represent people in this Province on this issue

should let their voices be heard. There is a place to let their voices be heard

where it can have some effect on whether this rate gets approved or not. The

rate hearing is before the Public Utilities Board. It is an arms-length agency.

The decision is not going to be made by government. We are having no effect on

that, other than through the consumer advocate's role in making sure that the

consumer advocate represents the public that comes to him, and we have that in

place. The Public Utilities Board is operating by standard utility practices

that are in place anywhere in this country. We made changes only last fall to

the energy policy of this Province that also affect the Public Utilities Board

to ensure that they operate properly and effectively.

As of now, I believe there are only seventeen people or

agencies that have appeared before the Public Utilities Board and asked for

intervener status. I know that at least a couple of the members opposite have

asked to be interveners. If they all want to have an effect, they should all try

to have intervener status where it matters, before the Public Utilities Board,

when that hearing starts on June 10. I would encourage them to do so.

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

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

I wish to present a petition signed by 532 residents of the

greater St. John's region on behalf of their families relative to the proposed

closure of Presentation House.

The petition reads: We, the undersigned, hereby wish to state

our opposition to the proposed closure of Presentation House, Newfoundland's

only emergency shelter for children under twelve years of age, which as we know,

was scheduled for March 31, 1996, and has been postponed to May 4, 1996.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this petition is signed by 532

residents of the greater St. John's region. I make note, it is the first of

several petitions that will be presented to this House on this matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period this morning, I just got

a chance to ask one question. The minister replied that her department is in the

process of re-examining the whole issue of how we take care of children who are

victims of dysfunctional families and that foster homes will be found for these

children. I point out to the minister that we are not against foster homes;

however, many of these families recognize that these children come from

emergency situations. They have been traumatized. They are victims in society.

They are often coming from families that are very poor and there is a connection

between emergency shelters and child poverty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since 1980, when the Presentation Sisters

were asked to open this kind of house, 1,681 children have gone through that

system. This very day, there are eight children there, seven boys and one girl,

ranging in age from eight months to twelve years.

If foster homes were all that readily available, I ask the

minister: Why is it that three children of those eight have been there since

December 26, 1995? Therefore, if we are going to say we don't need emergency

shelters anymore, why has your department, I ask the minister, left three

children in that home, that emergency shelter, for the past nearly three months,

wanting three days?

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be able to take children out

very quickly from emergency situations where they are facing a threatening

environment, where they are victims in dysfunctional families for a whole

variety of reasons, why is this minister's department responsible for leaving

three children there for almost three months? How, then, would we be able to go

and take them today, if we have a situation like on December 26, Boxing Day,

when all the departments are closed? Where, then, are these children going to

find shelter? I say to you, Madam Minister, before you change the system, keep

in mind that these types of shelters are necessary.

If we are going to start closing emergency shelters, are we

going to start closing emergency shelters for battered women, as well? Are we

examining that? I would say to Madam Minister, before you go and close this

shelter, look at and read and examine the mandate. Would you please go listen to

the 532 people who have signed this petition, and would you please engage in

consultation and dialogue and live up to the commitment of your Premier that you

are going to listen to the voices of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; that you

aren't going to ride roughshod over everybody every day, but you are going to be

articulate, you are going to listen, and you are going to be willing to examine

the viewpoints that other people have. Five hundred and thirty-two people say

you are doing something that is wrong, that is threatening children, that is

going to put at risk children who are already at risk.

Mr. Speaker, before we do something that we are going to

regret, I ask the minister if she would today give a commitment that this is not

going to be done by some bureaucratic red tape kind of exercise; we are going to

have a child-focused, a child-centred program for these victims, and we are

going to work on a policy - the Premier said during the campaign: We are going

to put the interests of children first - and make sure in this Province that the

children come first in our examinations and that we don't let them ride in the

back of the Liberal bus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, in support of the petition on

Presentation House, I would like to state that the establishment has been in

place since 1980. Presentation House right now has approximately fifteen years

experience in what it is doing. As `Harvey' has mentioned, there has been

approximately 1,700 children run through the establishment of Presentation

House. It was put in place as a short-term care centre for children in crisis.

The concept was to prepare children to get back to their own homes or to go into

foster care or to go into the adoption system.

The stays right now are getting longer than were originally

anticipated. The stays originally were supposed to be up to six weeks. Some of

the stays have been as long as nine months. Right now, there are a couple of

children in there as long as three months. These children come into Presentation

House as very confused and very frightened individuals and are exposed to a

safe, loving and nurturing environment. The parents, as well, feel insecure,

frightened, and have a feeling of incompetency because of the fact their

children have been taken away.

Presentation House develops an interaction between the

children and the parents to try to foster the whole purpose of returning the

children to their own homes. If this is not the case, and the children are to go

into foster care, Presentation House acts as a transitional period to make it

easier on these children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

I would first like to agree with one of the statements made

by the previous speaker that Presentation House has indeed performed a very

valuable role in our community. It is an emergency shelter for children under

the age of twelve years, and it does deal with children who have been

victimized. We all know as a concern for children, and in identifying the needs

of children, that a normal home is the best place for those children to be, but

unfortunately that is not always the case.

The role that the Department of Social Services has tried to

provide is to put these children in an normal home environment, and as I

mentioned earlier the goal of this government is to try to identify the needs of

children and to keep them in a home environment that is considered normal, and

that would be moving away from an institutional environment which is in fact

what the Presentation House is. It serves a very valuable role but it does fit

the description of an institutional setting. It does provide very good services,

and I mentioned earlier, we would commend those services.

The goal is to keep children with their families, and I would

like to think that the previous speaker did not assume that foster care is not

able to provide a nurturing, caring environment because that is clearly not the

case. In this Province we have numerous foster homes providing the best of care

for families and allowing those children to return to a normal family

environment as soon as possible. The government and the Department of Social

Services is committed to children, and it is committed to helping these children

return to a normal family environment.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to

the House of Assembly. The prayer of the petition reads: the residents of

Southside Road wish to petition the House of Assembly to have the CN freight

shed on Southside Road either cleaned up and restored or dismantled as we

believe it is not only a health hazard but an unsafe structure.

This structure on the Southside Road has been vacant for

quite a number of years. Right now it is infested with rats and birds.

Apparently there is approximately a foot of bird droppings in the building so it

is unaccessible to even be walked in. It is an eyesore. If this building is to

be cleaned up, or dismantled, we ask that consideration be given to having a

pest control measure carried out to take care of the rat problem. The roof on

the structure right now is in the course of caving in. One of the overhangs on a

freight door has fallen off and landed on the street. There was a water main

break in the building within the past two years and also a fire set by children,

so I ask the House to accept this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

On occasion there are petitions presented in the House that

really have no significance to other member's districts, and while some may

think petitions are small, or really have no place in coming to this House, I

stand to support my colleague for St. John's South's petition today because what

he is talking about has severe impact. He is talking about an old storage shed

that has been vacant for over a decade, that is rat infested, and that people in

the area are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who owns the shed?

MR. E. BYRNE: It is owned by CN and by CN Marine. It is

down around the dockyard, just up from the dockyard. The reality is that there

are a number of residents in that area, along the Waterford Valley area, where

there is a serious problem from an environment point of view because of the

freight shed, the emptiness, and what is happening there, but also as a health

hazard. I say to the Minister of Health that, if today, this petition presented

by the Member for St. John's South can precipitate some action by officials in

the Department of Health, to ensure that that freight shed is cleaned up, that

the rat-infested problem that is not only in the shed but is affecting many

residents in the area, in terms of rat problems that are associated with their

own properties, in their homes et cetera, and the health hazard that that specie

carries with them, well, I think that this petition has a place in the House

today, and I ask the Minister of Health and I ask his officials to check into

the situation and to hopefully, Mr. Speaker, instigate an action where the

Department of Health can instigate CN Marine to look into this problem and

rectify it immediately.

Thank you very much.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I thank the hon. member for his petition

and for the specific request he is asking, that an investigation and a check be

done as to this whole problem, so we will get our officials to do that right

away if they haven't already, and as quickly as possible. I mean, that is a

serious problem if it is existing, and we will have the officials in the

Government Services Centre who have officials from a variety of departments in

government, look at the problems as quickly as possible and get back to you,

okay? We will report to the House as a matter of fact. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1, Bill No. 2, Mr. Speaker, Interim

Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1. The hon. the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor, which I would now like to present to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending March 31, 1997. By way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with

the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the

House of Assembly.

Sgd.:_____________________________

Frederick W. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the

message, together with the bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply on the message and the motion of the hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The bill before the House requests Supply in the amount of

$1,023,126,600.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 600.

MR. DICKS: We can probably live without the $600, however

the balance I would recommend to the House.

We have consulted with the various departments and asked them

to provide estimates as to what amounts will be necessary to keep the

government's operations rolling for the anticipated period when the Budget would

be passed, sometime toward the end of June, we anticipate.

What the amount is comprised of is 29 per cent of the 1995-96

capital and current Budget. For members' interest, the current amount is below

the amount requested for Interim Supply last year. Last year the House was

requested and did in fact assent to, or rather vote a Supply to Her Majesty in

the amount of $1,054,000,000, so we are down somewhat.

The amount is comprised of the following: There is a

pre-allocation based on the following: We have seven pay periods from now until

the end of June out a total of twenty-six and we have allotted 25 per cent of

non-salary items. In addition to that, we have capital that we are committing

for ongoing projects and those that were previously committed as a result of

last year's Budget. There are new capital account and current account

expenditures which I will list, and the hon. members can certainly have whatever

detail they may reasonably request.

There is, first of all, the Roads Program, which comprises

the TCH, the trunk roads, the Strategic Highway Improvement Agreement, and that

is a total of $49 million. There is $10 million for provincial roads and

bridges. There is $20 million for the Economic Renewal Program. Members will

recall that the federal and provincial governments agreed to spend a total of

$100 million, allocated 20 per cent to the Province and 80 per cent to the

federal government over some period of years. At this point we are not

absolutely certain which or how many of these projects will proceed, so we have

been advised by the officials that we should commit the full twenty at this

stage. Should that not be spent, of course, an adjustment would be made in the

budgetary process so that the House would have the full information shortly,

within the next month or so, as to what the allocation will be in the current

year.

There is an amount of $930,000 accorded to the Atlantic

Investment Fund. This is an amount that represents the Province's share in the

forthcoming fiscal year of a $2.4 million commitment to fund an investment

activity that is jointly sponsored by the federal government, the five charter

banks, and the four Atlantic Provinces.

Mr. Chairman, that is the essential outline of the amounts

that we are requesting. I attempted to provide the Leader of the Opposition with

some further detail. The estimates, by department, are set out in the bill and

my colleagues and I will be delighted to answer any questions that the hon.

members may raise.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have a very new, expensive, Minister of Finance, looking

for $1.02 billion to keep this Province operating for the next three months. At

that rate we will need over $4 billion beyond the amount that we have expended

over the past number of years. I am sure the Minister of Finance is well aware

of that.

When we look at the Budget, and the operation of the

Province, just this past, I guess, two fiscal years, when we look at the fiscal

year ending in 1995-'96, and the previous year, 1994-'95... I know the Minister

of Finance is running off to do some further Budget work -

AN HON. MEMBER: He has to leave. Oh, shame.

MR. SULLIVAN: - looking for some more money for Interim

Supply.

There are a lot of artificial figures in the Budget, as we

are well aware. Back in 1994-'95 the Budget was balanced on $51 million that was

one-time funding that came into this Province. There was $31 million, you

recall, on the South Coast Ferry Service. There was $55 million that this

Province agreed to receive from the federal government to absolve the federal

government of any responsibilities for operating the ferry service on the South

Coast of this Province. If we recall at the time, the then Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation said that: We will have a fund in perpetuity where

we can put this $55 million aside, and we will use the interest generated on

that, about $5 million a year, or $5.5 million; that is what is costs to operate

the ferry service on the South Coast.

That was lumped into the general Treasury of the Province in

1994-'95 to balance the Budget. Now we have to operate the ferry service on the

South Coast of this Province out of the general operating revenues here in the

Province. There was $31 million came in 1994-'95.

In addition to that, they took $20 million from the sinking

fund and put it into the operation costs, which was $51 million, which was an

inflated figure, was not a real figure. That is money we had to find in 1995-'96

in order to balance the Budget, and in 1995-'96 the problem became more

pronounced. They then went and took $13 million of that $55 million and

allocated that to the fiscal year 1995-'96, and used $13 million. In addition to

that $13 million, they took $70 million from the sinking fund that is used to

pay debts as they become due out on the international market and the Canadian

bond markets. In addition, they also used one-time revenues from the sale of

Holiday Inns and Newfoundland Hardwoods that realized, I think, in the vicinity

of - well, they expected to receive $13 million, was the projection there. I

think they were off again in their estimations, as has happened three of four

years I think that I have been in this House. The offshore revenue fund was $7

million.

When you add all these together, in 1995-1996, fiscal year,

there was over $100 million that are just one-time revenues that we don't have

in this fiscal year, that we are not going to have because the money was

expended. That is one of the reasons why we have a $230 million shortfall here

in this Province. Because we grabbed at everything we could get, sold off what

we could get, used one-time funding from the federal government to plug a hole

in the Budget now, and now we are going to face a crisis. That is short-term

economic planning, and that has caused the problem.

The Government House Leader is....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the Wells Administration. The Peckford

Administration, many things I didn't agree with either, I say to the Government

House Leader. I don't care what administration it was. I don't support some of

the initiatives of the Peckford Administration, and the previous Wells

Administration, and I will be eagerly waiting to see whether I can support the

directives of this Administration. I will be eagerly looking forward to

judgement day, I guess, on April 25 to see what the Budget has and how it shapes

up with the Liberal red book that is being promoted around this Province and the

promises that were made. We will be holding them very closely.

I went through three judgement days in the last four years.

Four, actually. I survived three. One I didn't. But I've gone through three

judgement days, and I hope we don't have any more judgement days in this

Province for four years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sure the Minister of Health if he wants

to maintain his health, he won't want to see another judgement day for the next

four years. I'm very surprised to see the Minister of Health is looking so

healthy. Back to pass down the same harsh measures in health care that he has

been delivering to the people here in the Province. I'm sure the Minister of

Social Services knows quite well what I'm talking about. I'm sure he can share

some of those sharp cutting techniques in her portfolio as the Social Services

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I always accept the judgement of the

electorate. I've never questioned the democratic process.

In this fiscal year we are now entering, 1996-1997, the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has indicated that we are going to need

$230 million. Eleven million dollars of that I would assume is the last transfer

from the federal government, the last $11 million transfer that is going to go

into the South Coast ferry service. We put in $31 million in 1994-1995, $13

million in 1995-1996, and the remaining $11 million we are going to get this

year. I'm assuming that is included in the $230 million, which would bring it

down to approximately $219 million.

The minister referred to some new initiatives. Out of this

expenditure of $1.02 billion there are $79.9 million of new initiatives and new

direction. The federal-provincial roads bridge program, that is 100 per cent

federal government funding. The federal government $100 million, the Roads for

Rails agreement, $800 million to come to this Province over a period of about, I

guess, fifteen, twenty years. That is where this $49 million is coming from.

That is federal money we are going to be receiving.

Economic renewal program, the one that was announced last

June, the one that was held over to get announced and re-announced again in

January and February, the one that got announced about ten times, the conference

I attended at Hotel Newfoundland last June, that is that $20 million. I sure

hope it is going to be used in economic renewal and it is going to be used

efficiently and that we are going to get a proper return on that investment. I'm

looking forward to see how it is going to be dispersed and what type of

initiatives are going to be receiving this particular funding.

We all know how important it is to have an Atlantic

investment fund. It is good to see the banks playing a

part in that and other

Atlantic Provinces in a cooperative agreement. We need to see more of that. We

need to see more cooperation among provinces, among Atlantic Provinces, to help

develop the economies in economically deprived regions of our country like

Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I am disappointed here to see - and maybe the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation might be able to indicate a little further

- $10 million in this Interim Supply has been allocated for provincial roads and

bridge programs. Back in the late 1980s there used to be $40-$50 million spent

to maintain roads and bridges in this Province. Now, last year there was only

$12 million expended and some of that was a carry-over - the former minister

could certainly indicate that - about $12 million of provincial dollars, all the

rest were federal dollars. Now, I see here in Interim Supply, in new funding,

$10 million being allocated. I hope it is not the case that that is all we are

going to see in infrastructure in roads and bridges in this Province. I had the

opportunity to drive around every single part of Newfoundland and parts of

Labrador, and I can assure you, the roads in this Province are in the worst

state they have been in our history.

MR. EFFORD: You must have had you eyes closed, boy.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not. The former minister is

spending too much time in his own district. He is spending all the time in his

own district. He is looking at roads paved up to the back-doors in his district,

but across Newfoundland and Labrador, if you travel down the Bay d'Espoir

Highway, you travel out the Gander Bay Road in the spring, the Southern Shore

highway, and all over the Province, you can see that the roads in this Province

are in a very dilapidated state. In fact, it is going to take hundreds of

millions of dollars, an infusion of dollars to be able to get the roads back to

a level that we can operate on. They are in very poor shape.

I say to this government, they have spent as much money in

four years as was normally spent in one year. We just cannot maintain

infrastructure here with Band-aid and patched up approaches there. Infusion of

money into infrastructure is one of the wisest investments. Economist would tell

you, it is an investment that stimulates the economy and helps expedite business

in the Province. We talked about the Outer Ring Road and how that would

facilitate business, development and movement of traffic flow and entice

business to move into the east end.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a waste of money.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi thinks it is a waste of money putting money into our transportation system.

I think it is a wise investment.

It is also important to see economic renewal yes, going into

aquaculture and silviculture, very important. I say to the minister responsible

for silviculture, it is very important. We need to ensure that our forests do

not become like the fish in the sea. We can count trees much easier than we can

count species in the marine environment. There is no excuse, it is a provincial

control. We complain that the Federal Government did not give us any control and

we could not control that. We can control development of forest resources here

in our Province. We should ensure that the money is going to be well spent and

well directed to ensure that there is a renewable and a sustainable aspect to

harvesting trees for the pulp and paper industry, the logging industry in this

Province.

Mr. Chairman, there are many, many areas of expenditure here.

In health care there are $317 million to carry us through a three-month period.

We still have not seen any restructuring plan. We still have not seen any

directives where we are heading in health care. We have monthly decisions being

made. All I have seen is monthly decisions being made to plug a hole when it

arises. When public sentiment rises in a certain area, then they make an effort

there. Then they will wait and in three or four months, if another area shouts

louder and there is a greater concern, then they will try to address that. There

is no general plan where we need to be for health care in this Province. We need

to have a master plan of where we need to go and how we are going to get there.

We have not seen where we need to go by this government and I say that sincerely

to the Minister of Health. I have not seen where we want to go in the health

care system in this Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The plan? I will tell you the plan we have

developed and any aspect, I say to the minister, on health care - the minister

promised in this House that we would have, in early fall, a plan on the

restructuring. In early fall he said, We will have it by December, in December

he said, We will have it shortly, and here it is March, almost back to June

again, and no plan whatsoever. People out there in the system are looking for

answers and they want to know what this government has to offer. This government

made a lot of commitments and one particular one, I say to the minister, in the

Home Care and Enriched Needs Program, the minister stated that they were going

to cut back and cap people at $2100 a month. Then, in the election campaign, he

came out with a frantic announcement that anybody who was getting more were

going to maintain that level, and what has happened since is that people have

gone out and done reassessments of those same individuals that were given

eighteen hours before, and they are now being reassessed and told they only need

eleven hours. What have they done? They have changed their method of assessment

and capped, when people who need the care are not getting it.

I have spoken to people recently in Gambo, in Gander, and in

my district, who have called me this past week with concerns of family members

that they are not getting a fair shake, and that they were being misled by

announcements and given false hope, and then the rug got pulled out after the

election on February 22. I have instances, I tell the minister, that deal with

these specific cases, instances that address those areas.

Mr. Chairman, we need new initiatives. We need some specifics

on direction, and not generalities. We want to see what the five-year plan for

that $100 million is going to be. We do not want to throw out money one year,

and then decide next year and next year. We need to fund investments in

high-tech industries, as this fund is suppose to do, in aquaculture, which it is

supposed to deal with, and in tourism. We need to look at a plan that can assist

industry in getting off the ground and carry that to fruition, whether you have

to give initiatives in year two, three, four and five, and not to take the $100

million and spread it so thin that no one industry really gets beyond that

embryonic stage of development when they can move on their own. It is better to

spend $100 million on ten specific areas that are going to get a long-term

result than spread it over fifty that are going to keep people happy for a

short-term. We have seen too much of that in this Province, to throw money at a

short-term problem and not have a long-term economic plan.

I certainly hope that in this new area, and the new minister,

will look very seriously at long-term planning in this Province. We need it. We

are going to face two tough years economically.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will just finish with a sentence or two,

and then later I will again get a chance to continue.

We need to have some long-term planning here in the Province,

and we want to make sure that the dollars we have - there are scarce resources

in this Province, and we want to ensure they are going to be used efficiently,

and one of the duties we will perform is to monitor very, very closely all

expenditures and follow them through to fruition to see if they achieve the

desired results.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I am pleased to stand in my place today and say a few words

on the Interim Supply Bill, as it is referred to, Bill No. 2. What I see about

the Interim Supply Bill, of course, is that there are not enough specifics. We

are asked to approve something like a pig in a poke, I suppose, Mr. Chairman.

This Administration, the first day in the House of Assembly, really, with

anything to be discussed, or what have you, is asking for $1,023,126,600, and I

am sure the previous Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if had his

way, the only thing that Cape St. Francis would get would be the $600.

Mr. Chairman, this is a serious bill to be discussed. I know

that government needs the money to continue on with its procedures and workings

while we are waiting for the main Budget to come down sometime towards the end

of April.

With respect to this bill, itself, I have some concerns with

Paragraph 3. It says, `The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by order transfer

sums voted within one Head of Expenditure to another Head of Expenditure during

the 1996/97 Interim Supply.'

If you now look at the votes themselves for the different

departments I see some departments that I have to question right off the bat.

For example, the Executive Council is looking for $27,405,000 for three months,

which appears to be quite a chunk of money for the Executive Council. My concern

would be how much money could be taken out of that and put into another

department to be spent and the House of Assembly would not really be aware of

it?

Now, Works, Services and Transportation are looking for

$148,705,700. Again, with respect to the state of the roads in this Province at

this point in time, I can understand that they do need a large amount of money.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand that they do need a large amount of money to keep

the roads in proper repair. I don't know how much money that would be going on

repair and upgrading but I would say a fair chunk of it would be going into

salaries.

The previous Minister of Works, Services and Transportation -

I have been after him since I have been here to spend some money in my district,

in Cape St. Francis. The man is a very biased person, I suppose, and he openly

admitted in the House of Assembly a number of times - he actually referred to it

here this morning - that Liberal districts are where the money will be spent.

I am looking forward to having meetings with the new Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. I know the lady and have had dealings

with her in the past, and I am sure that she will not be of that nature. I want

to inform her of some of the things that went on in the past in my district.

That was probably three years ago I met with all the town councils in my

district. One of the budgets that had come down probably two years ago had one

sentence in the Budget that said the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation was going to look at passing over connected roads to the

municipalities. At the present time it required that the municipality had to

agree to it, and also the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, or

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and they were going to being

in

an act or legislation to change that and only require that the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation can do it by signature.

That has not come to the House of Assembly at this point in

time, but when I saw that in the Budget, I went to all the municipalities in my

district. I went to Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, the town of Flatrock, the

town of Torbay, the town of Bauline, and the town of Pouch Cove and I made a

case to them that they should look at approaching government and be probably

some of the first in line to receive some of the monies. If they were going to

do it - I thought it was going to come anyway, so why not be the first in line?

I went to the towns and we made a deal, the Town of Logy

Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove made a deal with the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation to take over the Marine Drive itself and the Outer Cove road

going through the community. Those roads are in very poor shape. I think they

worked out a deal of somewhere around $500,000 to be spent over two years. Then,

I went to the Town of Flatrock, the Wind Gap - I'm going to ask the minister, by

the way, in due course to come with me and drive these roads and see them for

herself, the state of the roads in that district. For an area to be so close to

St. John's - we have the scenic Marine Drive where thousands of tourists come to

St. John's each year and travel the Marine Drive, and it isn't fit to drive

over. We have the Wind Gap in Flatrock. Again, it is in pathetic condition. It

is to the point now of being dangerous to travel. We have the Bauline Line. The

town council of Bauline actually put up a sign that referred to it as the

longest speed bump in Newfoundland.

I think that the District of Cape St. Francis is in desperate

need of monies for the roads in that area. As I said, the previous minister was

not too co-operative along that line. I had the various councils in to meet with

the previous minister and he just never made any commitments whatsoever.

Actually, I was expecting to get some money spent in the district last year but

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation cut $10 million from their

budget and that was scrapped. That was the deal that had been worked out between

the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove and the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation. Also, the Town of Flatrock had a deal worked out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) greater needs in Port de

Grave (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, there are greater needs in Port de

Grave; there is no doubt about that. The former Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, at least in his mind there are.

I see here the department of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fairness and balance.

MR. J. BYRNE: Fairness and balance? I've addressed enough

about fairness and balance with the previous Premier and he didn't know what the

words meant.

MR. E. BYRNE: That has changed. It is called Full and

Fair Share, now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Social

Services is looking for $101,088,300. I would like to make a comment on that

one. When I was going door-to-door in the recent election, there were a number

of issues came up in my district, and I am sure they came up all across the

Province in various districts. The Department of Social Services came up quite a

number of times. For a district that is so close to St. John's with the

employment rate probably higher than most rural districts, there is a fair

number of people on social services in this Province.

I found that the last Minister of Social Services was - how

will I put it to be diplomatic about it?- was a bit cold-hearted. I think what

we have to look at - and she looked at facts and figures, and I think the

previous Administration was a bit cold-hearted. What we have to look at is the

human factor. I have people coming to me all the time with problems in social

services. I have had a lot of dealings with the Department of Social Services.

We have a number of calls in my office right now that are being worked on. I

think what the bottom line has to be - it is all well and good to say: We have

to cut our deficit and we have to look at the bottom line, and all of that, but

we also have to have a serious look at the human factor in this Province.

The previous Administration took a very hard approach to the

running of the Province, from my perspective, and I think the people of the

Province deserve more. In fact, from my perspective, as a Member of the House of

Assembly, I believe that the previous Administration contributed to the problems

in the Province with respect to social services. The number of people on the

rolls of Social Services, I think, went from 30,000 up to over 70,000, the

reason being to me, I think, that we have gone beyond the point of diminishing

returns with respect to the cuts in the Province.

Before Christmas, we had 400 people laid off, and what is the

end result? Where are these people going to end up, or a fair portion of these

people? A number of them will leave the Province, there is no doubt about that,

but again, a good number will stay in the Province for various reasons, family

reasons and what have you, and end up on social services. By doing the amount of

cuts that we have, then we are looking at less RST received, less income tax

received in the coffers of the Province.

Again, the Department of Social Services is an expensive

department, but I think we really have to look at the human factor, and I would

encourage the new minister to do that.

As I said, we have $1.02 billion for three months. It sounds

like a lot of money, but maybe it is needed. Twice that may be needed to get

this Province on the road again.

The previous Administration had a habit of bringing down a

Budget in the spring, which is normal procedure, of course, and last year they

said we were going to have a balanced Budget. I remember our critic for Finance,

at the time, standing in his place right here on this side of the House and

saying that there was going to be a $50 million to $60 million deficit at the

end of the year. Last fall, what did we see happen? We saw the Minister of

Finance - I think it was the new minister appointed last summer some time - he

came to this House and actually made the statement that the Budget of the

previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Baker, was nothing but smoke and mirrors. So

he said we needed $60 million, and he went to all the various government

departments and cut right, left and centre, and it created a hardship for the

people of the Province. By doing that, basically what he did was send out a

message to the Province, and to the people in the Province, that: we don't have

any faith in the economy of the Province; we don't have any faith in you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him clue up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will just say one or

two more sentences. I have lots more stuff to say in this sitting of the House

of Assembly. We have nine members here who are ready, willing and able to

question members on the other side of the House. This morning, when the

ministers got up and answered questions, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, we were very polite on this side of the House, I thought, to the

new ministers. A few members on that side of the House were not so polite to

some of our new speakers - first-time speakers - but everything in due course. I

am sure that we will be a very aggressive Opposition in due course.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is time that I got a little bit of practice in on

my new role as being the second alternate Minister of Finance. That is not a

very significant or serious issue for the members on the other side of the

House, but I have been listening to some of the comments that are being made in

the debate on the Interim Supply Bill, and I think it is only appropriate that

from the government side of the House we respond to some of the things, and

provide some clarification and good information to some of the situations and

suggestions that have been put forward.

I understand that the Opposition House Leader and the

Opposition Leader really are not quite comfortable with - I guess they are a bit

taken aback with the level of co-operation and the level of information that is

already being provided to them from the new leader of the government side of the

House. I understand that there has been more information provided to you over

there already by the new House Leader than you have been used to getting in the

past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, I am not suggesting that the former

House Leader did not give you enough information. I am a little concerned that

the new House Leader might be giving you too much information, because I

recognize the limited capacity that you might have to take in information in

great volume, and certainly to take in good information in quantities that you

are now getting from the new House Leader.

The thrust of this new government is to be open, to be

informative, to be sharing, to be collaborative and we are going to reach out to

the small but faithful band of members on the other side -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell people about Presentation House.

MR. MATTHEWS: We will tell people about Presentation

House. I can only say to the hon. Member for Waterford - Kenmount, that the

answer given to the question regarding Presentation in the House this morning by

the new Minister of Social Services, had significantly more content and

substance than the question.

I can only look forward with great delight and not a small

amount of glee, to the responses to questions you are going to get from this

side of the House. The hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation this

morning, not only answered the question, which I am not sure is the right thing

to do to some of the questions because really, the basis of some of the

questions that you get from the other side of the House have no substance in

fact, but notwithstanding that, she answered the question in great detail, with

great poise, substance and with good information, and I can only suggest and

imagine that the group on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman, very

quickly, will be going back to Kindergarten classes in terms of their function

as Official Opposition in this House because, they are in for one rude awakening

if they think that new members and new ministers in this government are going to

be uninformed or uninformative or non-corporative to them and with them.

We will provide you with quality answers to every non-quality

question that you put to us, and we challenge you to do your homework because on

this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, we have already done ours.

The seat that one sits in this House I can tell you, Mr.

Chairman, is no indication of the quality of the people themselves. You are in

the front benches, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Waterford-Kenmount is in

the front benches but in the big picture, he is really in the back benches, he

is almost insignificant. It is a lucky thing, if the election had gone on for

another week, Mr. Chairman, there would be nobody over there except the hon.

speakers who cannot now speak because they don't live, and that would really

have been a reflection, a true reflection of what would have happened in the

election had it gone on for another week. They would have been history, Mr.

Chairman.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a

point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I think

that you, Sir, as the acting Chair here should demand an apology from the Member

for St. John's East or St. John's North or whatever the new district is, to

insult a former colleague of his by pointing to a picture and saying: he doesn't

live. Mr. Chairman, that is unheard of I am sure, in parliamentary sittings in

this whole land. It is totally ridiculous. You should be ashamed of yourself and

should apologize to the House.

CHAIR: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I don't intend to reply to such specious and

spurious points of orders as the hon. gentleman. I don't intend to carry on as

Government House Leader doing that kind of thing but I would ask the hon.

gentleman not to waste the time of the House by getting on with that. As a

matter of fact, I think the Minister of Health was talking to the people right

here behind me and the Member for Terra Nova is certainly not in that group.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you repeat that?

MR. TULK: We don't intend to reply to that. There is no

point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please! There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If the hon. Member for Bonavista North can give me the

addresses and tell me the last time he spoke with the first ten or twelve people

who have their pictures on the wall, I would be happy to withdraw what I said.

To the question of whether or not there needs to be an apology to my colleague

from Terra Nova, one of the finest or the finest Speaker that this House has

probably ever known, I have to let the hon. Member for Bonavista North know that

this hon. member over here, just because he is not in the Speaker's Chair, Mr.

Chairman, doesn't mean that he can't speak. It doesn't mean that he needs

somebody to defend his existence as being alive and well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. I said the first ten, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is a difficult

time, looking at those people and looking at those people, to distinguish the

living from the dead most of the time. Because there are times when we look over

at the other side of the House and it isn't a morgue scene, but sometimes it is

a morbid scene.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member to be relevant.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was attempting

to be relevant by being factual in what I portray as being the situation on the

other side of the House at the moment.

To the debate that we are having on the Estimates. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition raised some points with respect to the propriety of

some of the actions taken in the last government. Now I understand the

difficulty that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has in terms of trying to deal

with the present and look to the future as opposed to dealing with the past. The

members of the House will remember two days ago when he spoke in reply to the

Throne Speech that was given by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that he spent

about twenty-five minutes criticizing the policies of previous governments when

in fact the Throne Speech was about the future.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition even though he

is not there, and to the members on the other side of the House, that this is a

new session of the House of Assembly. We are going forward with a new plan and

with an invigorated government and a new government to deliver good governance

to the people of the Province. To the extent that they want to dwell on the

past, they will be judged on their performance on that basis, but this

government is going forward.

Some of the things that the last government did

notwithstanding were appropriate. The hon. member seemed to suggest that we

shouldn't have struck the tremendous deal we did with the federal government in

terms of acquiring the $50 million by taking over the ferries on the South

Coast. He is asking where we put the money. We put the money to good use in the

Province by enhancing and continuing to be able to provide public services that

we do. He is suggesting that it was something fundamentally wrong with selling

the Holiday Inns and taking that money and putting it into the treasury. We

happen to believe that it was the right thing to do; it was the proper thing to

do. The result of that sale not only contributed significantly to the coffers or

to the revenues of the Province, but it is contributing to the revitalization of

the Province generally.

I understand that the several new owners of the Holiday Inns

property are now embarking upon a major retro-fitting of those properties. They

are spending more money to bring those properties up to a higher standard of

service and adequacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Do I have leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. That is an added benefit to the

privatization initiative. I will come back to the questions and to the issues

that were raised regarding health care when I get a chance to speak again in the

debate.

Let me tell the hon. member before I sit down that in terms

of cutting back on services to seniors under the enriched needs program, rather

than cut back let me tell him that of the $900 million that we have in Health

this year in our Estimates and we spend annually in our budget, $185 million of

that is spent on senior services alone. So this government doesn't drop its head

or admit to reducing services to seniors. At an appropriate time I will outline

to him the level of services that we provide to seniors in this Province. We

will compare that to what is done right across the country. We will demonstrate

that we have the highest level of services to seniors in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; exceeds every province in Canada except British

Columbia and Alberta.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and the hon.

members for the time to finish up by leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just

wanted to have a few comments on the interim supply bill.

First of all I'm disappointed that we don't have any more

detail. We have been asked to approve $1.023 billion and we do not have any more

detail than just one sheet of paper. This happens to be 30 per cent of the

Budget for last year and certainly I do believe that the Minister of Finance has

an obligation to supply all hon. members with a more detailed breakdown.

Mr. Chairman, we, on this side of the House, want to be

cooperative with the government on getting this Interim Supply Bill passed

before the end of this month, before March 31, however, we are going to be

seeking more detailed information so that we can give more people in the

Province a better idea as to what they might expect. For example, I would want

to ask the Minister of Finance that if we are going to be facing a $230 million

deficit this year, which is what has been said, and if we are going to continue

the spending programs in the first three months - which is the indication made

by the Minister of Finance this morning - then that will mean that we will have

to make up the $230 million over a nine month period.

Now, Mr. Chairman, obviously decisions will have to be made.

If we take, say the $230 million deficit and we divide it by twelve then we have

approximately $19 million that has to be cut out of the provincial budget every

month for the next fiscal year. However, if we postpone that until the three

month period we are talking about, then we are going to be talking about $25

million that has to be cut every month out of the budget. Mr. Chairman, we would

like to have more details, more than just a sheet of paper that says that we are

going to be spending x number of dollars on each government department in that

three month period.

Mr. Chairman, we want to know what the government policy is

going to be relative to collective bargaining. We know that we have to keep on

paying our public servants but in December of last year, in 1995, quite

unexpectedly, the Premier, the past government just announced one day that they

were going to lay off 400 employees. Now I know the Minister of Health would

like for us to forget about the past government. Mr. Chairman, those 400 people

who were laid off, who were given their pink slips in December, they have not

forgotten. These people know what the past government did and while I would

agree that, if I were on that side of the House, I would want to forget about

last December as well. I would want to go and say; yes, folks we are going to

start again because if there was ever a government that needs to start again

with a new, fresh approach, it is this government we have now but when you look

in the front benches and you see that the front benches are filled with the

members of the previous government, you have to ask yourself a very serious

question - with the exception of my hon. colleague the House Leader - when we

look at that we have to say where is the new energy? Where is the new vision? So

therefore we have to say that the only person that is over there with energy,

with vision, with foresight, is the Premier.

So, Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is that we are asked to

approve a budget which is basically saying: have blind faith folks. We are

giving you one-half of one page and we are saying this is sufficient information

for us to spend $1.23 billion. I am sorry, that is not enough. What are the

implications here for student loans at Memorial University? What are the

implications for budgeting at Memorial? They have to go and get their budgets

done and everybody recognizes that, who have been part of the system for years

and years. What will be the implications for the public school system? Are we

saying that we are going to reorganize the educational system by September? Will

there be new school boards? How much savings will accrue from that? Where will

that money be spent? So, Mr. Chairman, we want to know more details. It is

insufficient, as I said, that we would have such a little bit of information and

be asked to approve this budget in five more sitting days after today, really

only four because Wednesday of next week is traditionally -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is yours.

MR. H. HODDER: It will be ours, yes, and I say to my hon.

colleague that the Opposition will be using next Wednesday as its day for

Private Members. We don't see, unless we get a lot more information, why we

should give up Wednesday for Private Members next week.

Mr. Chairman, on the issue of health, we want to say to the

Minister of Health that we have seniors in hospitals in St. John's today - there

are forty to fifty seniors who are in hospitals - who are medically discharged,

and they have nowhere to go. Their families cannot take them back; there is no

space for them in nursing homes. There is a huge waiting list.

The Minister of Health knows that this has existed for a long

time. We would like to know what strategies he has to be able to overcome that

problem. That is his responsibility, as Minister of Health, to look at a problem

that exists out there with our seniors, the people who are at the stage in their

lives where they cannot help themselves any more. What an indictment to all of

us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we have people today in hospital

who are not there for any medical reason but because we have no place for them

to go after they are discharged.

We mentioned the 150 or so people who are on waiting lists,

in addition to that, to go to nursing homes. Then we have the issues of

cutbacks. We have cutbacks to home care. The minister knows that in December

there were memos sent out that said: Your home care is cut back from twenty

hours to fourteen hours or from fourteen hours to twelve hours. They were all

cutbacks. Then, in the middle of the election, there was a memo that came out

and said: Well, no, no, we didn't quite mean that like that. We are going to

review that, and we are going to change it a little bit, a little bit of change

in focus. Then, as soon as the election was over it was back to the old

strategies again.

When it comes to seniors, we have to go and let them know

what is going to be the level of home care. You have to say to them in precise

terms, so families can plan for their parents' future years. We are not against

the families sharing some of the costs, but we are against this strategy that

says: One month we have this level of care, next month there is something else,

and then it is moved to somewhere else, and that kind of thing. Be up front, be

fair, and make sure that we offer the kind of care and compassion that our

seniors have earned and that they deserve.

So I say to the Minister of Health that when he is speaking,

instead of getting on with a lot of rhetoric, he should be telling some of the

real answers to some of the real questions. Then he would be doing his job.

There was a time when, where I live in Mount Pearl, we were

represented by St. John's North, believe it or not. Back in that time, that was

part of St. John's North. We are, today, very thankful that we are not

represented by the St. John's North Member any more. My goodness, he is not

giving any answers to questions. He doesn't care about our seniors. We want

people who are going to speak up for the seniors in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: See what happened in your old district

when Rex ran up there?

MR. H. HODDER: I say to my colleague from St. John's

West, my district represents part of St. John's, and represents part of Mount

Pearl. I won the part of St. John's that I represent - decisively - so therefore

the assumption is that I could have continued into that area and won the whole

part of the district.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely difficult

to believe what I am hearing the hon. gentleman say this morning. I would have

expected a freshman member, who did not know the rules of the House, to get on

with such a speech, but it certainly would not be one of our members who would

get on with such nonsense. The hon. member gets up and says he is looking for

more detail on the interim supply bill. Have you ever heard such preposterous

nonsense in all your life? What kind of a document would he want to be brought

into this House? You would have to have wheelbarrows and hand barrows to lug it

in, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member knows full well that if he and his colleagues

so wish they can use up to seventy-five hours to find out what the details are.

That is what this is all about. We are simply following the democratic procedure

that has existed in this Province for the last 100-and some odd years, when the

Opposition gets up and asks questions about how we plan to spend the interim

supply bill.

There was a brief interruption in that democracy, and I'm not

talking about Commission of Government. I'm talking about when the hon. member's

party was in power. I remember quite well when this House did not give the

interim supply bill because we could not get the answers. We couldn't get the

House open in the first place, but when we finally did get it open we could not

get any answers. Do you know what they did? They did it by a special warrant, a

Lieutenant-Governor warrant.

What a mockery the hon. member's party made of democracy, to

govern by special warrants. They would not open the House. I remember a former

Leader of the Opposition out pounding on the doors asking that hon. members

would open the House so we could talk about the way the people's money was being

spent, the millions that were being poured into the Sprung Greenhouse. Couldn't

get any answers. Now, we would like -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I hit a nerve, obviously. When

you hit a nerve you know it.

What this interim supply bill is, as hon. members should

know, but in case they don't know - and I would have thought that the Opposition

House Leader would know - the interim supply bill is - government is making

provisions for three months of supply, with a total of somewhere in the vicinity

of $1 billion. You make up the budget for the Province for somewhere between $3

billion, $3.5 billion. That is the budget. The hon. members knows that normally,

as we have done for the past seven years when we were government, people in the

previous administration in power, we always made sure that the budget was

presented to the House before the end of March. I can assure you that in

subsequent years the budget will be presented to this House before the end of

March. But this is an election year when we totally wiped out the Opposition. We

certainly did away with all the quality, and a substantial amount of the

quantity disappeared as a result of the last election. The interim supply bill,

we would have normally had the budget in the House now, but still we would have

had to go for interim supply. It has always happened.

The hon. member talks about new initiatives in student loans,

new initiatives in the public school system. He talks about making changes to

present programs or introducing new programs. The hon. members know that that

will be dealt with during the budgetary process. You don't do that in the

interim supply bill. All we are doing is asking for permission to have enough

money to make sure that the single parents who are receiving assistance from

Social Services will get their money. All we are doing is making provisions for

six or seven - seven pay periods, I believe it is - so that the employees of

government, the hon. member himself included, can receive their pay when the pay

period comes up.

That is all interim supply is. This is not any brand new

initiative. It is simply a stopgap measure. It deals with the general ongoing

housekeeping expenditures and ongoing program commitments, with a few minor

exceptions. There are some new current and capital account programs projecting

about $79 million or $80 million. This is all spelled out in the document. We

have a federal-provincial road bridge program, the old railway deal. If we don't

get our $50 million on our interim supply bill we will not be able to award the

tenders so that the road work out in the Ferryland district, or over in the Baie

Verte area of the Province - all the great road work which we are doing - we

won't be able to get the tenders out until some time in September or October, so

that little bit of money is put in there.

During the election we announced very proudly our economic

renewal program. Now, it is an 80/20 funding program. We want about $20 million

in Interim Supply so that we can get on with some of these good initiatives. I

don't think it is the wish of the hon. members opposite that they would stop any

action on the part of government, that we can get on with these economic renewal

programs.

There is a provincial road program, for instance, which is

different from the federal one; we want to get money for that. So I don't see

why the hon. member gets up and talks about all the initiatives which are not in

the Interim Supply Bill when he knows full well that we are not talking about

the Budget. All of these things will come up in the budgetary process, and if

the hon. member wants answers, or wants a bigger, thicker, fuller document, I

would suggest to him that he is totally off on the wrong track, but I would

suggest that instead of wasting the seventy-five hours -

AN HON. MEMBER: I gave him pages of information

yesterday.

MR. DECKER: He is just not satisfied with it.

What I would suggest to the hon. member, instead of getting

up and making speeches which are totally irrelevant, why doesn't the hon. member

get up and ask some specific questions to various departments about what they

need for the Interim Supply, to take us through the three-month period, while we

are waiting to get the Budget through. Instead of getting up and pontificating

and waving his arms and making big speeches, get up and ask the questions, and

then he will get all the answers to all of the details he wants. It would be

totally inappropriate to bring in a document with every single detail in it. If

we were going to do that, there would be no point in opening the House. We could

just make the document public. The people of the Province would take it and read

the portion that they wanted to, and the role of the member would totally

disappear.

The hon. member knows that the way the system works is that

he is here representing the people of his district, to get up and ask the

various ministers what they want to do with the money, what it is all about, and

as soon as he does that I can assure him that as in the past he will certainly

get all of the answers that he requires, as soon as he bothers to take the time

to ask them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad

to rise today and give a few comments to start on Interim Supply, but I can

assure you that the few of us who have a couple of years experience in the House

don't need to be told by the minister what Interim Supply means, or what it

means to the Province, and the procedures of the Province.

I can also say to the minister, as far as quality of people

on this side of the House, including the nine members on this side of the House,

and the NDP, and also the Independent, the quality speaks for itself in the

election that we have just gone through, and the tide and the rampage through

the Province, an election that nobody knew was coming, and nobody had any idea

about. So if you want to question the quality of the people in this House, I

think the minister will find out in due course and in short term that the

quality of people who sit in the Opposition will be asking those questions, will

dig into details and so on on Interim Supply, and on budgets and so on; and,

answers are expected, and nothing like what we saw today, rhetoric and partisan

rhetoric on not giving forthright answers to questions that were not answered in

the last twenty-five days of this election. That is what we hear around this

Province more and more and more.

As we know, an election takes on a whole different mode

because it is media hype and so on, but we do not get to answer the questions

that are specific, that will impact directly on people in this Province, and

just a few of those are: UI reform, which the Leader of the Opposition asked

specific questions on today, I say to the minister. He asked specific questions

to which there were no answers, but I can tell you this: All members on this

side of the House will be asking specific questions; and, likewise, as the

Premier said, we will look for co-operation from the government to answer those

questions directly as we see fit.

Mr. Chairman, we can talk about budgets and, like the

minister said, maybe some day we will see the Budget at the right time and we

will not have to look to Interim Supply, so we can see the details and they are

forthright.

Then the minister has the gall, I guess you could say, to

talk about previous administrations. Now, in the new face that is on government

- yes, there are new faces in government; there are new faces on the government

side of the House, there are new faces on the Opposition side of the House, and

with that in mind I would like to first and foremost congratulate all new

members on being elected on both government side and the opposition side, and

commending them for taking the time and committing in their lives to a style of

life that not many people get a chance to do, in this Province. There are very

few who do it, we are down to forty-eight seats now representative of the total

population of this Province. We believe it should be more, down to forty seats,

but right now we have forty-eight people in this House of Assembly who were

elected through the process of democracy which we hold in this country, to be

able to stay in their places and represent their districts on certain issues and

speak out on their behalf and for that, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate and commend

every single member, especially the new members in this House who were sworn in

on Wednesday and became official members of this House of Assembly and say to

them that we welcome you - not like we are veterans I am sure, because most of

us have just been here for a couple of years, but of course, like the minister

talked about long, long, ago and he will tell you many stories about long, long,

ago again and talk about previous administrations because he told us so many,

Mr. Chairman, but we are not attached to any previous administration, we are not

interested in once upon a time, we are certainly not interested in Sprung Green

Houses because I don't know anything about Sprung Green Houses or how it came

into being or anything else, Mr. Chairman, -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sprung has sprang.

MR. SHELLEY: - and I would suggest to the Minister of -

What is he now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. He thought he was Works, Services and

Transportation but he is certainly not that. He couldn't do the job there so now

they have him put into Fisheries and Aquaculture, and, Mr. Chairman, I am sure

that the current Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but it is

nothing to brag about because she will definitely do a better job than the

previous Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I could tell that

from just one Question Period. She has already done a better job than the

previous Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. She actually gave an

answer, Mr. Chairman, that the minister couldn't do for two years, and now, he

is the Minister