March 27, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 6

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. REID: If I thought Ed would publicly say he was a friend of

mine again, I would apologize to him.

Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the Office of the Fire

Commissioner, I wish to provide the House of Assembly with a status report relating to

Wednesday's fire at the Come By Chance oil refinery. I have been assured that the

appropriate actions to secure the site were immediately taken.

I wish to advise the House that a team of experts have now been

assembled and are in the process of conducting a thorough investigation into the cause of

Wednesday's fire at the Come By Chance oil refinery.

It is believed the fire started in the refinery's naphtha process

heater. It is suspected that a tube inside the heater failed, releasing naphtha into the

fire, causing an explosion. While the fire emitted a cloud of black smoke, it was brought

under control by refinery forces within thirty minutes and it is not believed to have

caused any damage to the environment. A community liaison committee is in place and will

keep area residents advised with respect to environmental issues.

As hon. members are aware, three employees were injured. All three are

male workers. They were taken to the Clarenville Hospital and later airlifted to the

Health Sciences Centre where they are being treated at the burn unit. All three workers

sustained varying degrees of burns to their bodies as a result of the serious accident.

The latest report this morning, and it is not in the press release, is that one gentleman

is still in very serious condition.

As well, I wish to express, on behalf of hon. members on both sides of

the House, our deep concern to the families of these three gentlemen. We can only imagine

what they must be going through. We would like the families to know that our thoughts and

prayers are with you, and we understand and appreciate this difficult time you are going

through.

It is my understanding the refinery management is doing everything

possible to assist and accommodate the needs of the immediate families of the fire

victims.

I wish to inform the House that Mr. Alison Tupper, a forensic engineer

from Nova Scotia, arrived at the North Atlantic Refinery Company site yesterday afternoon

at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Tupper, who has considerable experience in these matters, will assist in

this investigation which is being conducted under the authority of the Fire Commissioner's

Office in cooperation with the RCMP.

While this is a fire investigation, it is also very much a work safety

related issue.

The Department of Environment and Labour has responsibility for

workplace health and safety and the Department of Government Services and Lands is

responsible for boiler vessel pressure inspections, and both departments will assist these

other agencies in this investigation.

Environment and Labour will undertake a comprehensive investigation of

this accident from an occupational health and safety perspective. The department will

specifically look at safety policies, procedures, training and equipment, and the

objective will be to determine if all efforts were made to ensure the safety and

protection of workers at the refinery.

I do wish it to be known that regular inspections are conducted at this

facility. In fact, a workplace health and safety inspector was in the process of

conducting a safety inspection at the refinery at the time of the fire and explosion.

Government is confident that these agencies will conduct a thorough

investigation. Their findings will provide relevant information relating to the cause of

the fire and will, Mr. Speaker, address matters relating to safety practices and the

environment.

Upon completion of this report, it will be government's intention to

review all relevant findings with the refinery owners with a view to initiating whatever

actions are deemed necessary to prevent any such future occurrences.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister this morning for a copy of his

statement.

We, too, Sir, as well as yourself - I know you mentioned it - and are

very concerned about the health of the three workers who were injured.

I believe that over the last several years there have been other

incidents at this particular refinery, and maybe it is time now that we sent in our own

fire commissioner and our own people from the Department of Environment and Labour. Maybe

it is time to go in there now and really do a first-rate analysis of that particular

facility. I believe that time is here.

It is very unfortunate, I guess, that none of us on either side of this

House realize that there is a problem, or that there could be a problem, until something

goes wrong.

I think it is time now that we sent in our inspectors, a fire

commissioner, and that we just not leave it to somebody coming in from Nova Scotia or

wherever. I think that we should now go in ourselves and do a very thorough inspection on

this particular facility, because I do believe that over the last few years there have

been other incidents as well.

We can only hope and pray that the three people who were injured are

certainly able to survive this and come back to good health.

Hopefully all of the proper safety guidelines are being followed, and I

would ask not only the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for the fire

commissioner, but also the Minister of Environment and Labour, to make sure that these

people go in there. They were getting ready to go in there, but now let's go in and really

turn her upside down.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, last year, government, through the efforts

of the former Minister of ITT, who is now the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the former

Minister of Rural Development, who is now the Minister of ITT, targeted the telefilm

industry as a new opportunity for economic growth with the establishment of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation. This is a relatively new sector of

the provincial economy that offers potential to diversify our economic base, attract new

investment and generate significant new jobs within the private sector. I will also note

that the telefilm industry is highly labour intensive and that increased activity in this

industry can benefit all areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the telefilm industry is a very competitive business, both

nationally and internationally, but it is also growing exponentially throughout the world.

Other jurisdictions have effectively used their tax systems to stimulate economic and

employment growth in this sector, and capture a share of the growing market for new

entertainment products. For example, following the introduction of a tax credit program in

Nova Scotia in 1996, film production activity increased dramatically in that province from

approximately $15 million to $50 million in two short years.

It is for this reason that Government has decided to introduce a film

tax credit program and is seeking the advice of the Film Development Corporation and

industry on the most effective approach. I might say, that I believe Mr. Danny Williams, a

well known Conservative in the Province, was in the newspaper this morning praising our

efforts in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, It seems we have a real problem with leadership in the PC

party.... The objective is to structure a program that will encourage additional private

sector investment in this industry, strengthen the financial capability of local film

production companies, and stimulate and sustain new activity and jobs in the industry. To

ensure the benefits of any new tax incentive program directly accrued to the people of

this Province, government favours an approach that will link any tax incentive received to

the actual level of local employment achieved by any individual film production company.

In other words, greater tax benefits would be earned by a company as they employ more

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and as they increase their local payroll generally.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Newfoundland and Labrador Film

Development Corporation and my own officials to give this initiative top priority

attention and through appropriate consultations with industry, advise government of the

most effective program possible so that we can bring forward legislation on this

initiative as soon as possible this year, hopefully before the spring is out, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt that this is good news; I mean, this is something

that we are heading into, but I say to the minister that the film industry is nothing new

to this Province. We can remember such films as `The Rowdy Man' on the West Coast some

years ago and it became sort of famous and `Orca', that was done in Petty Harbour - I

think it was done there.

MR. J. BYRNE: And Middle Cove - Outer Cove.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) done where?

MR. FITZGERALD: In Tickle Cove.

MR. SHELLEY: In Tickle Cove? So, Mr. Speaker, it is not new, it is

something that should be encouraged in this Province; there is no doubt about that, Mr.

Speaker. Also, I have talked to the minister a few times about it and it is, of course,

increasing business for the film industry and it employs people. It can be very

labour-intensive when it comes into a community and God knows we have lots of places

around Newfoundland for good scenes, especially when it comes to movies like `Orca' and

others like that.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is no problem, I would say, in this particular

industry to find actors in this Province and we could probably use some of our own also. I

do encourage this. I know that Nova Scotia has taken that lead and we are following them.

It is something that holds great potential for this Province and we look forward to some

great movies being done here in this Province in the near future.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

The Auditor General's Report has indicated many areas of poor

management where control of the public purse seems to be in jeopardy. In questions to the

minister on Tuesday, I made reference to the Western Memorial Board where they are not

even in a position to be able to do an accreditation survey because it is in shambles; no

records since 1995 and so on and financial statements.

Now, further examples of this mismanagement seem to be emerging and I

want to ask the minister: Would she explain, why, in the transfer of the Child Welfare

Program to the community health board that this program will not be transferred to the

Western and Labrador Boards at the same time as it will be transferred to other health

boards here in the Province?

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

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

Well, I think the member has outlined some of the very reasons.

Obviously, as a government we are very concerned and we want to make sure that things are

working very well. We have concern about the financial management, we are looking to put

good, financial management controls in place in these particular boards and that is the

very reason, Mr. Speaker, because we are concerned and as a government, we want to ensure

when we create this new department, that we have all the balances and checks that we need,

in place, to make sure that it runs very smoothly.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it, from what the minister is saying, that the reason you are

not transferring it now is because the management is not in place and they are not capable

of taking on that responsibility now. Could the minister clarify that?

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

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

No, that is your assumption. I would say to the member across the

House, that is your assumption, that is not what I said. What I said was that we are

putting in place - it has been made quite clear, Mr. Speaker, from the Auditor General's

statement that the financial audited statements for Western in particular, are still not

completed. We have one in draft for last year and we have this year's coming within the

next couple of weeks.

Mr. Speaker, we see the creation of the new Department of Health and

Community Services as one that is extremely important and we want to make sure that we

have all the checks and balances in place to do what we need to do. That is why, Mr.

Speaker, it is no reflection on the management that is there currently. What we are doing

is ensuring that they have good, sound, financial management systems in place, as do some

of the other boards, through very strong computerized systems. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some

of our other boards are working very closely in the spirit of assistance to make sure that

this is possible. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, because we care and we want to make

sure that it is done properly.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you are transferring child welfare to all boards in the

Province except the Western and Labrador. Why are not Western and the Labrador board

receiving it? Is it because they do not have that efficient management now and you are

working on it? Could you tell us why some are receiving child welfare and others are not?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is the same question and the

answer is the same. We have put in place the ability to, this time - just so that the

member understands what is happening and I think it is important because I really do not

think he does understand what is happening on April 1. On April 1, Mr. Speaker, this year

is the beginning of the new Department of Health and Community Services. Employees will

continue to work in their same areas. There will be no shifting of offices. This year is

really an administrative change. The employees previously of the Department of Human

Resources and Employment, now, as of April 1, Mr. Speaker, will become the employees of

the Department of Health and Community Services. They will report to the boards, but

administratively in these two boards, until we have the good financial management systems

in place that we feel are necessary to make sure this particular department needs to get a

good start, we are taking every precaution. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would think the

member across the way would applaud us for making sure these checks and balances are in

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J. M. AYLWARD: I am quite concerned, Mr. Speaker, that he would

think we would do anything less.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are planning for a year for child welfare to be taken over by

community health boards, and as of April 1, boards in this Province are not ready to take

on that task. The minister stated that in her fact sheet, accompanying the Budget on

yesterday.

Now, after this year of planning, I ask the minister: Why is it not

happening? Is it due to poor planning, is it due to an execution of those plans, or the

inability of boards to take on these new duties? There is chaos in the system, I say to

the minister. Now tell us why it is not happening.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important today for the

people of the Province to hear what the member across the way is saying about our

volunteer boards which are working very hard to deliver the services in our Province. I

will not admit they are in chaos, Mr. Speaker, because I value the work they are doing and

I appreciate the commitment they have to their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, for one minute, that he thinks that

transferring services over to create a new department is as simple as a year's process. It

shows his lack of understanding of the depth, Mr. Speaker, of what we are trying to do. I

would happy to brief him at any time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is an excellent time to brief the entire public who will be

hearing answers to my questions in Question Period, I say to the minister. That would be

where we would like to hear it.

Minister, there are numerous instances of inefficiencies in the Auditor

General's Report - ineffective management, poor accountability in spending - and we do not

have health boards ready to take over child welfare. There is chaos in the system, I say

to the minister. She knows it, even though she will not admit it.

Now, I ask her: What does this say - the minister tries to talk about

volunteer boards. Volunteer people appointed by the minister may be doing their best. That

is not what we are complaining about. Why is the system not ready to take on these new

responsibilities, I ask the minister? Is she aware of this display of weak management at

the board level here, and what is she doing, what plans does she have, at the operational

level to do something about it? Has she put forth a certain strategy and plans at that

level?

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

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

I do think it is important to take a minute in Question Period to give

some information so that the member has a better understanding of what is happening.

Because you know, Mr. Speaker, this was something that was made very clear as a direction

we should follow, in a Select Committee that the previous House Leader sat on, and

actually urged us to move in this direction.

In addition to that, the Select Committee on Children's Interests, the

classroom issues report, and more recently our own staff and managers, advised us that

this was the proper way to proceed, and we are proceeding. We are proceeding carefully and

slowly. We spent a full year in the administrative planning which we have completed. We,

this year, just for your information, are not putting our legislative responsibility for

child welfare to the boards. We, as a government, will maintain legislative responsibility

and accountability for that department.

There will be legislation coming into this House on our child and youth

services' piece where he will be able to express these concerns and any others. I think it

is important for me to say that I will not in any way say that our boards are in chaos. I

will not downgrade what the management have done, and I will support the staff and the

boards in the very important work, because it was their decision to promote change. While

change might be difficult for this member, for our staff in the system, for this

government, we embrace change, and we are working with the people to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell the minister, I am a lot more accustomed

to change than she is!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The St. John's regional health board, the Eastern,

the Central, are all ready to take on the responsibility, and Western and Labrador are

not, I say to the minister. Minister, re-organization was supposed to achieve efficiencies

in management and administration and an improved quality of health care. That is what was

supposed to happen.

I ask the minister, in light of the inefficiencies in management at the

institution - and I might add, at the board level by members appointed by the minister -

has the minister looked at any other structures for management of our health care system,

and if so, what are they?

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

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

I think it is important to say, first of all, so that we all

understand, I believe from what I am hearing from the member across the way is that we

should put child welfare and family rehabilitation services with the boards even though

they are experiencing some financial difficulty with respect to administration. I think

that is really shameful, if that is what we are hearing.

We have identified, and I have spoken to this issue before, we will be

putting in place - you are talking about new management? No, we are not looking at new

management structures. You know the management structure we are looking at for the Western

region. We are looking at a team of three people: a chief executive officer, a chief

operating officer, and a chief financial officer. That is what we are looking at there.

One of the things we will be doing is that we will be putting in much tighter monitoring

systems, and we have discussed this with many of our boards already, when we meet with

them to go over their budgets now that our Budget has been released.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Finally the minister answered what I asked. She said that we are not

going to push child welfare on health boards that are having financial problems, that are

not capable of taking it on. That is what she said. You can read Hansard on Monday to see

that.

In light of the inability, I say to the minister, of those boards to

take on those responsibilities, I ask the minister: What active measures are you now

taking, and what particular management structure are you looking at now, to correct those

inefficiencies or inabilities in the boards you have appointed, Minister?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to put words in

my mouth. I have said that I will not put down our management. What I said was that we

need to firm up our financial administration, and that is not reflective of the managers.

I am not going to go on record and tear down the managers in the system. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I give them every credit for working in our system and doing this type of service

they do on our behalf.

What I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that as a government we will act

responsibly, we will not put the additional responsibilities in place until we have

secured the ability to do sound financial management of these boards, in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, forgetting the pomp and pageantry of yesterday's Budget

speech, some two years ago now, the Minister of Finance stood in the House during Budget

debate and talked about the three-year commitment to Memorial University. We thought that

was a good idea. We had three years consistency, something that would be stable for

Memorial University as it went through this process. The intent was good, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister today about that three-year

commitment. Does he think that that is adequate with the reports coming from Memorial on

their budget crunch? Is he addressing the problems that are facing Memorial today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question, particularly a first question from my new

critic for post-secondary, and understanding that they have split it on that side, because

I guess there are a lot of issues that are important in education. I do understand, as

well, that the former critic for Education, who used to handle primary, elementary,

secondary and post-secondary still wants the job back.

Mr. Speaker, I understand as well that the critic has some extra time

to spend in his office, because he is getting part of the salary that used to be paid to

the education critic, when he was the Opposition House Leader. Now, the two of them are

splitting the money so that they have more time to spend in the office straightening

things out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to get to his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if we follow the order, I would fully

expect that the next question will come from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee,

because those are the only three people over there getting paid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We have had regular and repeated meetings with the representatives of

Memorial University, both the Chair of the Board of Regents and the President of the

University. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the university itself very much

appreciated the fact that three years ago, even, Mr. Speaker, before the current Minister

of Finance last year in the Budget came up, the first time in the history of the Province,

with a three-year fiscal framework for the Province - prior to that, Memorial University

was the only and first institution whereby we had given them an opportunity to have

three-year firm budgets, so they could plan what would happen in our only university in

Newfoundland and Labrador, over that particular planning cycle.

They praised the government for it at the time. As a matter of fact,

the one constant request that they would make of us is that, if it is at all possible we

enter into another two, three, four or longer period planning cycle with them, so that

they would make plans into the future. They fully expect to be able to handle everything

that they need to do in the university, because they have had a full three years to put in

place the kinds of changes and adjustments that would have been needed over that time. The

final phase of that will play itself out in this next fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand why the announcement on the film industries this morning,

because the minister just did his first acting job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is true and the minister knows full

well, and that is why I asked the question here today. We do - and I said in the beginning

- agree with the concept and the whole idea and rationale behind a three-year commitment,

so that Memorial can get on year-by-year and make their plans and so on.

Is it not true, Mr. Speaker - and the minister knows - that for

1996-1997 the government fell $1 million short on their commitment, in 1997-1998 they fell

at least $2 million short, and for 1998-1999 they are going to fall another $1.5 million

behind?

We know, as the reports come out of the university - I was talking to

them as late as this morning, Mr. Speaker - that there could be a $7 million deficit down

there this year.

Isn't it true that you are $4 million short on that commitment? Will

the minister admit that the truth is, the commitment by government has fallen short by $4

million and put Memorial in a budget crisis for this year?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer is absolutely, positively,

unequivocally, no. The fact of the matter is, every cent that was promised to the

university with respect to its operating budgets over the three-year cycle has been

provided to the university.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the other thing that the university has

done, in a very bold and creative initiative that the government supports fully, to deal

with some of its capital needs as well as some of its needs for students on the

scholarship, bursaries, fellowship side, was to work at getting private monies invested

into the university through the Opportunity Fund. The government, Mr. Speaker, agreed to

match the university dollar for dollar up to a $50 million fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member opposite does

not know or does not understand that the Opportunity Fund has absolutely nothing to do

with annual operations of the university. It is a special fund, Mr. Speaker, designed to

build new facilities at the university that they otherwise could not build; because they

are going to attract, over a five- or six-year period, some $25 million from private

investment sources. They have had great success to date.

In the last year, Mr. Speaker, they attracted another $3 million, which

is why the Minister of Finance announced yesterday that the government will pay another $3

million to the university for the Opportunity Fund because they have had that level of

success from the private sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

You did the right thing by calling him to order because he is rambling

on, and he is walking right into exactly what my third question is, Mr. Speaker. I do know

all about the Opportunity Fund, I say to the minister. The truth is, for every dollar,

that was a commitment by your government.

Mr. Speaker, what they really did: they have not only broken their

commitment on budgetary by some $4 million; they have also broken their commitment to the

Opportunity Fund. That is exactly what you have done, because what you dragged back on the

budgetary - and the minister should admit this today - the truth is, what they put into

the Opportunity Fund they have dragged back on their budgetary.

Will the minister admit today that they have broken actually two

commitments: your three-year commitment on budgetary, and you have broken your commitment

to the Opportunity Fund. That is the real truth of this; you robbed Peter to pay Paul.

That is the truth of it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can do is to invite the hon.

member to check again with the president of the university, the chair of the Board of

Regents, the vice-president of finance at the university. The university understands, and

to my knowledge will completely and totally confirm, that what the government committed in

a three-year planning cycle in operational funds to the university has been paid in full

every year exactly as committed.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the arrangements with respect to the Opportunity

Fund, which initially started as a five-year cycle, we have had discussions with the

university and they have agreed to the payment

schedule that is currently in place. The

government has not robbed anybody to pay anybody. They have paid the university, agreed to

bargain for, suggested, budgeted for, amounts both for normal annual operations and also

for the Opportunity Fund. I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. member is trying to

suggest anything different than that.

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

MR. SHELLEY: I am not suggesting anything, Mr. Speaker. I am just

stating the fact to the minister that they have broken two commitments: one on budgetary,

of some $4 million over the last three years, and the Opportunity Fund. They slid money

into the Opportunity Fund and they took it from the budgetary commitment.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial University has already stated - and they are

having more meetings on Monday, as the minister knows. I have just spoken to people at

Memorial this morning. Mr. William Davidson, Memorial's Acting Dean of Science, said that

the budget has been sliced by some $42 million in recent years. How many years, I am not

sure. Maybe the minister can tell us when he stands this time. He also says: The question

is, how did we get into this mess? The question is really for the Province to answer.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how far back they have gone? Why

is Memorial in the mess they find themselves in today, some $42 million short?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing I can clearly suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious on the

other side of the House, with their new arrangement with respect to payments for the

members who are now asking questions, that they have robbed Harvey to pay Loyola and Paul.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the rest of it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister knows the proper way to address members of the House.

I want to bring his attention to that.

MR. GRIMES: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. My apologies, Mr. Speaker, and

I hope that Hansard would not only show that I apologized but might even delete from

Hansard altogether the previous sentence that I used, because I know it should not be

there. Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, again there are matters that are

being discussed internally, within the university, with respect to meeting their budget

targets for next year. However, the amount of money that the government committed to

Memorial University for the fiscal year beginning on April 1 is exactly what they were

told three years ago.

The amount of money, Mr. Speaker, that the government committed to the

university for this fiscal year, which ends next Tuesday, is exactly what we committed.

The amount of money that the university received the year before for operations, from the

government, is exactly and precisely what was pronounced and announced in the Budget on

Budget Day. So, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the hon. member opposite is talking

about.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this morning is to the Minister of Development and Rural

Renewal.

Minister, in yesterday's Budget I was surprised and shocked not to hear

any reference to the people who are coming off the TAGS program, especially the thousands

of people who have already been removed from this program. All it stated was that

government hopes Ottawa will step in with a replacement initiative.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing all kinds of signals from Ottawa. Some

ministers are saying we are going to have a post-TAGS program; some ministers are not too

sure; some ministers are sure that we are not going to have one.

Minister, in view of the fact that if we do not have a post-TAGS

program it will bestow, I suppose, a problem on this Province that will turn this whole

Budget upside down. I ask the minister if he has some sort of commitment from Ottawa that

there will be a post-TAGS program?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that

as soon as Ottawa lives up to its responsibility, as we have been saying to them that they

should, and as soon as they decide that they cannot handle this in a regular program way,

let me say to the hon. gentleman that he will be one of the first to know. He will not be

the first to know, but he will be one of the first.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that we on this side

of the Legislature will take off our hat to nobody or we will bow to nobody when it comes

to -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Get some air and go look for a leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will quieten down, I

will try to answer a very sincere question on the other side of the House. Can you keep

them quiet down there, Rog?

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that we will continue to

impress upon Ottawa that it is their responsibility for the thousands of people; that the

national governments, including federal Liberal and PC governments, have destroyed a

resource; that we will continue to impress upon them that we will not bow to anybody when

it comes to representing the fisherpersons and the fish-plant workers in this Province. We

will bow to nobody, and we will continue to keep the pressure on Ottawa to see that an

appropriate program is put in place.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the recently released Harrigan Report estimates the end of

TAGS will throw 4,000 people on to social assistance immediately if there is no post-TAGS.

TAGS mean a quarter-of-a-billion dollars a year for our economy.

I ask the minister: How will we replace that quarter-of-a-billion

dollars? And how will we pay to support our people if Ottawa washes its hands of its

responsibility?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that

Ottawa, the federal government, the national government, has constitutional jurisdiction

for fisheries management in this country, and successive national governments have

mismanaged that fishery.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we realise full well, as the Minister of Finance said

in his Budget yesterday, that there will be a loss of some $200 million to the provincial

economy. We realize full well that it will be the same as shutting down three paper mills.

Outside of TAGS it will mean the loss of some 1,600 jobs in this Province.

We realize all those things, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason we

have said to Ottawa: You have to put a program in place here that shows you are accepting

the responsibility for destroying what should be a sustainable year-round resource. That

is the reason why we will continue to impress upon them that it has to be done sooner

rather than later, that we cannot go on much longer in this Province without letting our

people know.

We realize the tremendous stress our people are under in this Province.

We will continue to impress upon all federal ministers, all federal parties, and everybody

AN HON. MEMBER: You have had meetings.

MR. TULK: We have had some meetings in Ottawa in which we have

pointed out to people the necessity of doing this, and we will continue to have those. We

will continue to work with the unions and, I say to the hon. gentleman, we will continue

to work him, if he so desires, to see indeed that our people are taken care of.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, on page 31 of The Economy 1998

document tabled yesterday with the Budget, the government projects further out-migration

from rural communities to urban centres, and from this Province to the mainland, producing

a further population decline in excess of 9,000, on top of the record out-migration we

have seen to date. Minister, is this part of your plan, to have more people leave this

Province? Is that what Ottawa and this government's plan is, to have people leave this

Province in answer to a post-TAGS program?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use - no, I will not use -

the word stupid. What a question for the hon. gentleman to put forward. I don't believe

there is one Newfoundlander, I don't believe there is one member of this House, including

the hon. gentleman or anybody else, who wants to see one Newfoundlander and Labradorian

leave this Province. That is the reason we have put in place some of the things that we

have put in place. I will list them off for him. I gave the hon. gentleman on the other

side I think it was some three or four pages, which he didn't read, last spring, I tabled

for him, initiatives that we are trying to undertake in this Province to create some

employment.

Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to use the word asinine? What an asinine

question, to stand in this House and ask if the government of this Province wishes to see

people leave this Province. Does the hon. gentleman not know that for every person who

stays in this Province we collect some $7,000 from Ottawa in equalization payments? Where

would be the sense? What a stupid, asinine question to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. G. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I shall

ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the recovery of the fishery is slower than expected and foreign

quota reallocations are not the solution; and

WHEREAS families and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are in

crisis, and independent, objective reviews of the impact of the groundfish closures,

including the Harrigan Report and the Baker Report, clearly appreciate the enormous impact

on rural areas of the Province; and

WHEREAS a continuation of TAGS in its current form is not a solution,

and regular programming is unable to address the problem;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

federal government to accept its responsibility and put in place a well structured and

substantive response program to replace TAGS, which includes: income replacement, economic

diversification, employment adjustment and training linked to job opportunities, early

retirement options for older workers, and a licence buy-back program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my

district pertaining to the Goulds bypass road. I will just highlight some of the reasons

why it is important to have the Goulds bypass road done as expeditiously as possible. The

area in our district is increasing in tourism potential. Some people are spending in the

millions of dollars in investment in the district, and the transportation network in the

Province, to drive through a main street through the Goulds area, is hindering and

hampering the normal transportation of goods and services through that area.

Mr. Speaker, a few `Whereases' here highlight some of the concerns of

people in the area. It says:

WHEREAS significant opportunities for the development of the region are

contingent on completion of the Goulds bypass road; and

WHEREAS the viability of our communities and the businesses is depended

upon adequate transportation infrastructure that allows our region access to the

opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

WHEREAS the growth of our communities is closely related to the ability

of our citizens to commute and to work within a reasonable time each day over highways

that are in good condition; and

WHEREAS the financial resources to begin the Goulds bypass road are

identified under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative...

I might add, Mr. Speaker, a commitment by the department has already by

made that it will be done within the time frame set down. A letter from the minister,

writing to that effect, indicated that it will be done, and the people feel it should be

done sooner rather than later.

There is a tremendous increase in tourism in that area, a tremendous

increase, and one of the complaints we get is that when they drive from St. John's to a

Goulds area in traffic, it takes about forty minutes just to drive from that part of the

City of St. John's in traffic hours. You leave Confederation Building and get to the south

end of the Goulds, you are looking at a forty-minute drive in heavy traffic through street

lights and so on here through the city. The Goulds portion takes up about fifteen minutes

of that time, from Kilbride to the Goulds area. A Goulds bypass road would enable that to

be done in a matter of a couple of minutes.

Also, one area that really has not come up in discussion: I guess,

overall, if you look at the Avalon region here, the bottleneck, in terms of a disaster in

the area in planning, it has been said that the only southern route out of this particular

area here, in case of some major disaster - there is offshore oil, there are numerous

areas - is a southern access to the district through the Witless Bay Line area, and that

would further... In fact, the plan in the future, I would say, would be a bypass road to

take it right up to the Witless Bay Line. That would really improve the flow of traffic

here into the City of St. John's and out of the City of St. John's, and would open up a

whole new opportunity for business activity in Bay Bulls area, Witless Bay, that are

communities in spite of the downturn in fishery.

These communities are maintaining growth, small marginal increase in

growth, in those areas there. They are close enough to the city not to be hampered by the

downturn in the fishery. I might add, these communities have had slight increases in

population, but getting to the City of St. John's from Bay Bulls, to have to drive and

take fifty minutes to get to work from Bay Bulls, is not acceptable when it is right on

our doorstep.

Other parts of the Province have had an opportunity to be able to have

better access. It entices business into the area. There are people who commute and work in

the area there, here in the City of St. John's. There are businesses that traverse those

highways on an ongoing basis.

Not only is it a bottleneck from a traffic congestion. The condition,

really, of the entire road itself is in bad need over all of basically a resurfacing of

the area.

It is important that measures be taken to expedite the Goulds bypass

road. It is a process that has been identified from day one. Under the Roads for Rail

Agreement it has been identified. The amount to do it has been adjusted over the course

for the last several years, I think, from $6 million up to $10 million.

We realize the commitment is there to do it, but the question is: When?

We do not really want to see it put off any longer. The year 2000 or 2003 - we are looking

at five years' time before we can really reap the benefits of a transportation system. Why

should people living outside the city have to drive through what is really a Water Street,

from Bay Bulls Big Pond, right in here to the Confederation Building?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to support the

petition put forward by the hon. Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with the situation. Many years ago

when the planning began for this particular bypass road, it used to be called the Goulds

bifurcation road. The word `bifurcation' is not a common word, but it does mean a road

that is essentially an access, or a road almost like an arterial road. That road, in the

literature, was intended of course to go to the eastern extreme of the City of Mount

Pearl, go across the agricultural lands, and then go down to the Southern Shore.

The planning for this particular road began in the mid-seventies, so

this concept is indeed not very new. It is been planned now for well over twenty years,

and it can be identified in the literature for that length of time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been deemed appropriate by the regional planning

offices, including those of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this road is an integral part of the

transportation system in the St. John's - Mount Pearl region.

Mr. Speaker, we know that there have been some opportunities lost in

development in the Southern Shore because this road is not there, and we know that if

there is an area of this Province where we need to be encouraging development, it is along

the Southern Shore where the economy as been devastated by the decline in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, when we commit to this road we are talking about the

viability of the communities. Any of us who have had occasion to drive down to the

Southern Shore, and from time to time I do drive down there - nearly every week, in fact,

because I have friends in the Tors Cove Area -, and I can tell you that from the time you

leave the Mount Pearl area to get down there, a very short distance, you will find

yourself consuming an awful lot of time. When I am driving it is generally in the evenings

or on weekends; however, if you are doing this every morning you will soon learn that this

road, this bypass road, is an essential feature of the future transportation networks in

this region.

As the member who presented the petition said, funding has been

allocated under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative. We need to start moving

ahead so that the people who have to travel the existing routes every day will have better

access to the capital city, and better access to what essentially are the commercial

marketplaces, better access to their places of employment, and that we will be able to

decrease some of the traffic problems, and also for the sake of the pedestrians who have

to walk on the Goulds road now. We know it is narrow. It has not been upgraded in the

sense of having curbs and gutters, and extended to four lanes, and that kind of thing.

We, on this side of the House, want to support the petition and ask the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation if he will cause new initiatives to be

taken to have the Goulds bypass road work, shall we say, speeded up so that people can see

concrete action and know something more definite in terms of the guidelines as to when

construction will actually start.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Works, Service and

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really cannot disagree with much of the commentary that was put

forward by the hon. Member for Ferryland or the Member for Waterford Valley in support of

the petition.

The Goulds bypass project was identified in the Roads for Rail

Agreement. It is still in the program, as I shared with the member on a number of

occasions and also with a group of mayors and councillors from that area last fall. I can

only say to him that it needs to be done, and we will start it at the earliest possible

moment.

To put it in some context, I suppose, we have a number of pieces of

road in the Province that are being funded and cash-flowed over a number of years under

that Roads for Rail Agreement. As a result of starting projects in Conception Bay North,

Conception Bay South, the Pasadena area, and the Outer Ring Road, four major pieces of

road I could refer to, as a result of starting these many years ago and doing them in a

piecemeal fashion, which to some extent they have to be done because of engineering

requirements and that sort of thing, we still have not completed any of these projects and

gotten any value in terms of using them.

This year we are concentrating heavily, as I have indicated, on the

Outer Ring Road bed that has been done from Kenmount Road to Allandale, and possibly onto

the Cove Road. We expect we will be able to use that this year so that people from the

Southern Shore, people from the Goulds, people from Mount Pearl, people coming in over the

Trans-Canada Highway from out of town, will be able to get on that road and have much

easier and quicker access to this end of the city.

Once we have completed that project this year, then we can turn our

attention to the rest of the Outer Ring Road, of course, and also to some of the other

projects that are not started. So in saying all that, I am simply re-affirming for the

member what I have already told him. The fact we may be starting it a year or two later

than he would like to see the bypass road in the Goulds started does not mean it will be

finished any later. The truth in fact is this, that the Goulds bypass road will be

available for people to travel on and use just as quickly as if we had started it two or

three years ago and strung it out over a longer construction time frame.

There is also another piece of road coming from the east end of the

Southern Shore and the Goulds area coming this way, and that is the east-west arterial,

the bifurcation road. That is not even yet funded, or we have not identified funding for

that, and that is another integral artery in terms of linking and making transportation

simpler going from west to east, north to south, in the city.

I simply want to assure the people of the Southern Shore and the people

of the Goulds and the members who have spoken that we will be commencing the Goulds bypass

portion of the Roads for Rail Agreement project as soon as we can get moving on it, and

once we have completed, to the point of being able to use some of the other major projects

that are still, for want of a better word, sort of in slings in terms of not being up to a

point of being able to be trafficked.

We understand his concern and we give him a commitment, we give a

reassurance, that the project is on. Hopefully next year this time we may be able to say

something more positive or more affirmative regarding that project. It is not in this

year's project, and that is disappointing for the people, I know, but the good news is

that it is a prioritized project in terms of Roads for Rail Agreement and it will be done

very soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's

West I want to take the opportunity to welcome thirty Levels II and III democracy students

from Bishop O'Neill Collegiate in Brigus, in the District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne,

accompanied by teachers, Mr. Steve Hurley and Mr. Mike Flynn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today on behalf of

retired public service people.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime

contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to ensure public service pensioners receive a raise in their pensions whenever

public servants receive a raise in pay, and to reverse the policy of clawing back Canada

Pension Plan benefits from public service pensioners.

Represented in this petition, Mr. Speaker, are people who have worked

all their lives depending on their pension to be there for them when they retired. They

have been reduced to an average of $11,000 a year - that is an average of $11,000 a year.

Many of our retired pensioners receive much less than that. They are living below the

poverty line. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board the other day said that the

amount that pensioners received was directly related to their years of service.

I have a letter from a seventy-year-old widow who worked for thirty

years for the civil service and she is now receiving $1,000 a month. This is after thirty

years of service and if the amount of pension they receive is directly related to the

years of service than how much less are some of our pensioners receiving?

We have other people who worked for this government and who have been

phased out. They anticipated working until retirement and like many of us who anticipate

that you will be working until your retirement year, you assume financial responsibilities

but then you come into work some morning and you are called in and told: I am sorry, your

services are no longer required. But when their services are no longer required this does

not reduce their financial responsibility. So we have people who are middle-aged. It is

not that easy for them to get another job and now they are living on a fixed income of a

pension which is well below what they were receiving, and this pension is not indexed to

the cost of living.

Unfortunately, back in 1997, this government bought into or sold out

when they took on the HST. The Minister of Finance said yesterday it was the largest tax

cut in many years. You ask the retired person whose light bill or heat bill has gone up by

thirty or forty dollars a month, if they consider that to be a tax cut. This government

continues to turn a deaf ear to these people and leaves them out there living at or below

the poverty line.

So it is on their behalf today that I present this petition in the hope

that the government will have another look at what we are doing with our retired

pensioners.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am happy to stand in the House today and support this petition. Many

of the public service pensioners, Mr. Speaker, are seniors and some of these people are

single seniors living on their own with less than $11,000 pension coming in. Many of these

people, who are on public pension, are well below the poverty line. With the

implementation of the HST last year, not only are they below the poverty line but they are

also forced to pay a higher percentage of tax on their home heating fuel, on their

electricity and what have you. Mr. Speaker, these public service pensioners deserve a

raise, as do the public service workers. The public service pensioners have not had a

raise since 1989. The cost of living, however, since 1989, has increased substantially.

Mr. Speaker, if we continue in this House, to treat our seniors and our

pensioners the way we have been treating them, maybe they will take the example of the

young people in our Province and leave the Province. Out-migration in this Province is bad

enough as it is with the young people. At least we have our seniors sticking around for

the time-being. We cannot afford to lose our seniors through out-migration as well because

the cost of living in Newfoundland is perhaps higher than it is in many other provinces

and other cities throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is disturbing about this is the fact

that we were hoping, in the Budget announcement yesterday, that there would be some hope,

some glimmer of hope for seniors in this Province. If there were a tax break or a rebate

on HST or some sort of hope for our seniors through the Budget announcement yesterday

maybe we could have lived with and eased up on the issue of the public service pensions

but that was not delivered in yesterday's Budget. This government not only blatantly

disregard the youth, but now they are blatantly disregarding the seniors and the public

service pensioners in our Province. Therefore, I am proud and happy to support our public

service pensioners, and we will continue to fight for our public service pensioners and

the seniors in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

on Supply. Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. Oldford): Order, please!

We are resuming the debate on Bill 2.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to take a few minutes today to talk about the bill on

Interim Supply, to talk about some of the things that are certainly not in it.

I am, first of all, going to mention again the pensioners from the

Civil Service. As late as yesterday afternoon I had somebody visit my home who was having

a very difficult time surviving on the amount of pension that the lady receives. Yet, we

have chosen not to really do anything for these particular people in this Province. Mr.

Chairman, I think that is wrong. I think we should have assisted these people. As we see

from yesterday's Budget, there is absolutely nothing to assist them.

As well, Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General's Report, on the

Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. A year ago, in committee in this very House one night, I

asked some questions concerning the Chairman of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. I

asked what his contract was, I asked how he was hired, and I asked how many days he had

worked in the first six months of his employment with the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.

I was told by the Minister of Finance at that particular point in time that I would

receive an answer from him in writing. It is now a year later, Mr. Chairman, and I am

still waiting for that reply.

There are very interesting stories circulating concerning the Chairman

of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, and how many days he actually worked in the first

six months of his employment. It is very interesting, with the salary that I understand he

is being paid and for the amount of time and energy that he has put in. I would think that

being paid such a massive amount of money, he should spend more time in his job and less

time on the golf course. Now, I realize, of course, he was a political appointment.

I asked those questions and I never, ever got an answer. Pretty soon I

will ask them in the House, because I have not forgotten it. I would say to my colleague,

the Member for Humber East, every once in a while he comes awake. Something twigs his

interest over there and he wakes up. He has been sitting here for two years and it is only

into this session that we realize he could actually speak. Mr. Chairman, that he actually

speaks once in a while.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is just like the (inaudible) every once in a

while he lets out a squeal.

MR. FRENCH: That is right. Every once in a while he has something

to say and that is great, and he will certainly have opportunity in this debate and every

other debate to get up and talk and say whatever he wishes. But for right now I do not

play golf, I have no interest. In my sporting world, I am strictly a softball fellow but I

have lots of friends who play golf and love the game, by the way. I am a softball builder.

Golf is a great sport for those who play it; I am certainly not knocking it. I have family

and friends who play quite a bit and love it. They get out every chance they get but, they

get out when they are not working, I say to the member, they get out when they are not

working.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on today is Memorial

University. Why, why in the name of goodness the Auditor General is not permitted to go in

to Memorial University, for one member in this House, myself, I cannot understand.

Because, if ever there was an institution in this Province where the Auditor General

should go and should investigate and should look into interest-free loans, given to people

who earn the highest kind of salaries, interest-free loans, cars, bonuses -

We have students who are coming out of Memorial University owing

$40,000, $50,000 and $60,000 and yet, the Auditor General of this Province cannot go into

Memorial University to do an audit, and that to me, Mr. Chairman, is nothing short of

ridiculous. It is the people's money, it is the money of the taxpayers of this Province,

it is our money as taxpayers, and the Auditor General of this Province, if there is one

institution where she should have the right to go, it is Memorial University.

When you hear the stories of things that have been imported, the lay of

the ground in there, you hear stories of the bonuses - I do not know if they are true or

if they are not, but I would love for the Auditor General of this Province to be given the

opportunity to go into Memorial University and really go through, as the Auditor General

has the right to go through, the books of that particular institution.

In education in this Province, we spend one of the largest amounts of

money and yet, we have an institution that receives millions and millions of dollars from

this government to run its affairs and the Auditor General who is our watch dog, all of us

in this House, cannot go in there and do an audit on that particular institution and I for

one, Mr. Chairman, wonder why. What is there to hide? Maybe, there is nothing but let us

give the Auditor General the right to go in there.

We have parents in this Province who are helping their sons and

daughters go to university, and we have people going to university who are going through

on student loans and so on. They will come out at the end of the day owing a fortune and

yet, the Auditor General in this Province cannot go in there and I think we, as the

law-makers in this Province should be ashamed of the fact that we do not allow the Auditor

General to go into Memorial University. It is nothing short, Mr. Chairman, of ridiculous

that we cannot go in there.

I think, in this session of the House, either by private member's

resolution, from the Minister of Education or from somebody on the government side, we

should see a change in the Act which allows the Auditor General of Newfoundland and

Labrador to go into Memorial University and do an audit as only that department can do on

that particular institution.

The recipients, yesterday, of social assistance must be jumping up and

down in this Province. I know, Mr. Chairman, you have them in your district, I have them

in mine. They must be walking on water this morning with the dollar-and-sixty-two cent

raise. Hardly a down payment, Mr. Chairman, on two packages of gum. Just imagine, what an

insult! You would not buy two bottles of Pepsi Cola, unless you could find a place where

it was on special. Just imagine, a big massive raise we gave social assistance recipients

in this Province. What a raise! What a boost! How much more food it is going to put on

their table! What a job we did yesterday. How proud we must be - a standing ovation. What

an insult, Mr. Chairman! What an insult to a lot of these people who are below the poverty

line. What an insult! So again, here is another area we should be looking at, another area

we should certainly be doing something about, but we are doing nothing, absolutely nothing

to assist these people.

Another area - I am going to have somebody check this - that I did not

hear anything on in yesterday's Budget was the fact that there is no treatment centre in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for young people who are addicted to drugs.

There is no facility in this Province. There are facilities in Nova Scotia, there are

facilities in Ontario and so on but there are no facilities in this Province where we can

send people who are addicted, for treatment. There is a program at the Janeway and I guess

if you really wanted to you could have your son or daughter arrested and detained or you

could have them admitted to the Waterford Hospital but with regard to an institution in

this Province -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

But again, I think that is an area that we should get into. Over the

next several months, Mr. Chairman, as this House sits, I am going to have a lot more to

say on that particular incidence because it is time that we again, as lawmakers and

politicians, did something for some of the young people in this Province who so badly need

this particular treatment. I have been involved with a case from my own district which is

nothing short of a horror story, Mr. Chairman. But we have absolutely nothing in this

Province to help those people.

I thank you very much, Sir, for your time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I am going to say a few words, probably

as much for the benefit of the students from the Democracy class as for the members in the

House. As all members in the House know, for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

we are approaching the end of the year. The year ends on March 31, and of course we are

not going out on that evening and celebrating a New Year's Eve but we are celebrating in a

way. We are celebrating a brand new Budget which the Minister of Finance tabled in this

House yesterday. One of the best Budgets that I have seen since I have been here from

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Among all the good things which the Budget put forward,

it is significant that we have turned, we have turned a point. It is quite a difference

from 1989, I can tell you, when we opened the books of this Province and saw the mess it

was in. It was quite a difference yesterday, and we have turned around, Mr. Chairman.

We are approaching the end of the year. The new Budget has been tabled,

but what is going to happen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are not running again. And here we

are, we might have the shoes on -

MR. DECKER: I might have to run again, there is so much pressure on

me, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Look, if those gentlemen do not have anything better to

do, we could probably line up a leadership for one of the Liberal parties in Manitoba,

Alberta or P.E.I. If they have nothing to do we could certainly arrange something like

that. We have some vacancies and we could take them.

Mr. Chairman, the government is about to run out of money. March 31 we

will not have any money. We have spent all the money this House voted to government last

year, and until we get permission to spend our new Budget we are not going to have any

money. The process we are going through now is that we are asking the House to give to the

government enough money, to use a Newfoundland phrase, to tide us over until we get

approval for the new Budget.

The new Budget is somewhere in the vicinity of $3 billion, I think it

is $3.2 billion. We will be asking the House of Assembly to give it to the government so

that we can run the affairs of the Province as we have been doing in a very prudent, very

responsible manner, for the last number of years. As hon. members could probably help me,

normally it would take us until well into June before we get the approval to spend from

the new $3.2 billion. What do we do in the meantime?

March 31 we are out of money. We do not get the new Budget approved

until sometime in June, so what do we do in the interim? We come to the House and we ask

the elected members, who represent the people of the Province, to grant us Interim Supply.

We are asking for $1,010,089,200. On the back of this sheet - I would say to students,

they should get a copy of the Orders of the Day - there is a breakdown of what we are

going to spend that money on.

For example, the Department of Finance and Treasury Board needs

$11,985,200 to tide that department over until the new Budget is approved. Let us look at

the Department of Education. They have to pay teachers' salaries. They need $212,674,600.

If this House of Assembly by March 31 does not grant to the Department of Education that

$212 million, the teachers who today are accompanying the students here will not get paid.

There will be no money. The government will not have a cent to pay those teachers.

The teachers on April 1 - unless, as many of them will, many of them

would turn up, I suppose, without pay, but they do not have to. So if the House does not

grant this Interim Supply the teachers will not be paid on Wednesday, April 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: I am not attributing fault or blame, I am just

outlining the facts. If on March 31 that money is not granted, the school bus contractors

will not get paid in the interim. There will be no money to pay the school bus

contractors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you get paid?

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Chairman, I will not get paid, and the former

Leader of the Opposition will not get paid. These are the facts of life.

Sometimes Oppositions have been known to delay the Interim Supply bill.

This Opposition is a very responsible Opposition and they would not do that. There have

been times when I have seen, even in my mandate - I have been here until twelve o'clock in

the night trying to beg the Opposition to stop using tactics, to stop using procedure, to

delay the implementation of the Interim Supply Bill. That is not going to happen this

year. We know the Opposition is very responsible. I think the teachers can be quite

satisfied to know that this Interim Supply Bill will pass. I have no reason to think that

it will not. I am reasonably certain that with our new Leader, and even with the former

Leader of the Opposition, they were very responsible, very concerned, about the people of

the Province, Mr. Chairman.

So, I just want to say these few words, to remind ourselves and to

remind our visiting students of the process that we are going through. This Interim Supply

Bill will pass through the Committee of the House, assuming the members vote for it, or

the majority vote for it. After it goes to the House, then we go back into the full

session of the House and put it through second and third readings, and finally it is

signed by the Lieutenant-Governor. If all that happens, on March 31 -

MR. J. BYRNE: If! If!

MR. DECKER: I don't like the tone of my colleague across the way

saying, `if, if', unless he knows something I do not know.

If all goes well by March 31, hopefully this afternoon, we could have

the Interim Supply Bill passed and everything will continue as normal. The senior citizens

will get their money they get from the Province; the social service recipients will get

the money that they get from the government; teachers, MHAs, Ministers of the Crown, we

all will continue to get our pay.

If, however, for some reason, somebody on this side of the House or

that side of the House, were not to allow government to have this bit of money to tide us

over, then it certainly would be very, very drastic for the Province. I do not think that

will happen, I am certain that will not happen, but I just raise the flag in case someone

did not want to grant that money to government to carry on their affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Well, what an opportunity to get up this morning to speak to the

students in the gallery and give them a real lesson in reality here in the House of

Assembly, I say to you, Mr. Chairman.

We had the Minister of Justice up talking about holding the Opposition

accountable, I suppose, just in case this Interim Supply Bill does not go through this

House by March 31. What a joke, Mr. Chairman! Here they are, looking for $ 1 billion

dollars, 30 per cent of the Budget, to go ahead and spend willy-nilly, whatever way they

want to spend, Mr. Chairman, and put it on our shoulders, that if the House says they

don't approve it today, we are the bad guys.

Mr. Chairman, and to the students in the gallery, here is the reality:

That this House of Assembly closed on December 18, after sitting for thirty-six hours

straight, that we were here on this side of the House fighting for the people of this

Province, when they were trying to rush legislation through the House of Assembly just

before Christmas. And now, a couple of days before March 31 - it is only this past week

that this House of Assembly really opened to get down to business.

We should have been here three weeks ago, a month ago, two months ago,

Mr. Chairman. We could have had the Budget come down weeks ago and we could be discussing

the Budget, not Interim Supply. Fifty-five days for the whole year last year, Mr.

Chairman, fifty-five days this House of Assembly sat last year, the shortest sitting in

years and years and years.

Now we have the Minister of Justice over there trying to put pressure

on the Opposition, saying it is our fault if the teachers and the civil servants do not

get paid. The reality is, Mr. Chairman, that it is the government, Cabinet really, not

even the backbenchers over there, the Cabinet, all the people you see sitting in the front

rows right there, or all the people you don't see sitting in the front rows today, Mr.

Chairman - they are the ones who are responsible for bringing this Interim Supply Bill

before the House merely days before the fiscal Budget year for the government ends. That

is what is going on today. And the Minister of Justice has the audacity to get up and say

it is our fault if this does not go through the House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was quite prepared, as a member representing the

people of my district, to support the Interim Supply Bill and to make sure that it got

through this House of Assembly by March 31. I was quite prepared, but now I am going to

have a little chat with some of my caucus here, some of my colleagues on this side of the

House, to see if we should let it go through the House of Assembly, and I will tell you

why we have to reconsider. The reason we have to reconsider, Mr. Chairman, is, after

looking at the Budget that came down in the House of Assembly yesterday, the trickery of

this Budget, and this morning - it was not announced in the Budget yesterday by the

Minister of Finance, that we are going to see another hundred civil servants go. That was

already announced. We do not see them announcing the negative parts of anything that goes

on in the Province.

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: I want to remind the hon. Member, that if indeed the

Opposition does not grant Interim Supply that means that the government will stop

functioning, it means that all of the government public services will be shut down, it

means that we will be ground to a halt, and it will mean that the only way to break the

dead lock, possibly, would be to go back to the people of the Province and seek a new

mandate. I want the member opposite to realize that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Here we see the Premier of this Province standing in

his place today and talking about: If we do not allow this Interim Supply to go through,

the functioning of the government may come to a halt. Now, Mr. Chairman, what a statement

to make. What way is the government functioning anyway? Only a few days before March 31,

they come to the House and try to get us to force something through, as they do every

year, try and get us to sit here all night long.

With respect to an election: The Premier is threatening that all the

time. I am sure it is on his mind. These polls are ongoing all the time, and the Premier

governors this Province by polls, not by what is right and what is wrong, but what he is

told to do in the polls; not like the previous man who sat in that chair. He said whatever

was on his mind, right or wrong. He went full steam ahead and did it anyway; not like this

Premier.

With respect to an election, Mr. Premier: I have no worries, myself

personally. You, yourself, have told me about the polls in my district. I never had a poll

done in my district in five years and I am not planning on having one done, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, there you go! So, don't be threatening me with

an election. I have no problems, I say to you, Mr. Chairman.

Back to the Interim Supply Bill, Mr. Chairman: We had the Minister of

Finance announce today that there will be another 100 civil servants let go, but I have to

address that concern, Mr. Chairman. I was one of the first here five years ago to speak

about the morale in the civil service, and it is all because of these types of threats and

what have you, that you either take your seven percent or you get nothing, as the Minister

of Finance has said negotiating in the media, which is not very right; it is morally wrong

in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. We have those types of tactics going on in this

administration.

The Interim Bill is a bill, Mr. Chairman, that has to be approved by

March 31. As I said, I have problems with the Budget and I am going to have some

discussions with my colleagues on this side of the House to see if we should let this go

through before March 31.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, we have the Minister of Justice in his

place there saying that I am going to refuse to pay people, the civil servants. All I said

was that I am going to have some discussions with my colleagues and see if we should or

should not approve it. Now I am not saying we are and I am not saying we are not. Get that

straight, I say to the Minister of Justice. You have to understand that we have to be very

responsible, as you yourself said we are, and look at the Budget in terms of the Interim

Supply.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go. Mr. Chairman, that is a prime example.

I am speaking to the government House members. Mr. Chairman, here is a prime example.

Listen to this: Here is a prime example. We saw the Minister of Justice get up and the

students could not understand a word he said; completely confused. When I got up and spoke

four or five paragraphs, whatever the case may be, they understood everything that was

going on in the House of Assembly, needed to know no more, and they decided to leave. I

congratulate myself. Mr. Chairman, I did an excellent job in informing the students from

Brigus, I believe, on how the House of Assembly operates, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, back to the main issue.

MR. J. BYRNE: Back to the main issue. Thank you, Member for Humber

East. The Member for Humber East does speak, and sometimes - I will not give him a

compliment. I refuse to give him a compliment.

I wanted to talk about the situation with the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board this morning - members on that side of the House are trying to distract me

- with respect to the 100 people who will be laid off. I have a problem with that. I have

mentioned this to a number of people in passing, and that is: We had hundreds and hundreds

of people laid off from the civil service since this Administration took place. We could

see in the corridors of Confederation Building that the numbers were getting fewer and

fewer. But, within the past six months or so I see many new faces in Confederation

Building. I am just curious where those people are coming from.

Are all these people who are being employed now within the civil

service coming through the Public Service Commission? Are all these jobs being advertised,

and the people going through the civil service commission, three recommendations to the

minister, and they are hired? Is that the process being followed now? We normally now hear

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, every time he gets up to make an

announcement, saying, with respect to any tenders that have gone through the system, the

proper tendering procedures were followed. The minister makes a point of saying that, and

I wonder why he always says that. I won't get into the reasons why I believe he says it,

but there has to be a reason why he says that.

I want to know if all the people who are being hired in the civil

service in this Province, all the new faces that are in this building and in other

government offices throughout the Province, are all coming through the proper channels, I

say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I don't know. It is just a

curiosity that I have, and some people have mentioned it to me.

When we came into this House of Assembly this morning, we had someone

playing a little joke, I suppose. They had a little picture on our desks over here of our

former Leader of the PC Party nationally, and they made a little comment. It was taken in

good fun, and all that type of stuff. Here is the question I have to ask.

We have a situation in this country today where we almost lost the

country. I will give the Premier a compliment. I am not going to give him too many, I can

tell you that. With respect to acting out the role as `Captain Canada' last year with

respect to the referendum in Quebec, he played his part, he stood up for the country, and

he does stand up for the country. I grant him that. We all do on this side of the House, I

would say, Mr. Chairman.

We have a situation today in this country that is very serious. There

are separatists in Quebec, we all know that, and now we have the Prime Minister of this

country who put the pressure, as far as I am concerned, on the former Leader of the PC

Party nationally, Mr. Jean Charest. We had people in Quebec putting the pressure on him.

We had people all across this country putting pressure on him, and I would imagine the

Premier had a chat with the Leader of the PC Party last week - I know he did - to ask him

to leave the national scene and go to the provincial scene in Quebec.

Now, if I were on that side of the House I would be so embarrassed to

say that the Prime Minister of the country, who is a Liberal by the way, could do nothing

to help save the situation. We have Paul Martin who brings down his fancy Budget -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - almost as bad as the one that was brought down

yesterday, provincially -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Paul Martin can do nothing about it. They had to beg

the former Leader of the PC Party to lead the Liberals in Quebec. I, personally, can

understand the situation. There are a lot of people out there who cannot fathom that in

Quebec there is a separatist and a federalist population, Mr. Chairman. So they had -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave!

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There is a separatist and a federalist population in

Quebec, and they are begging the former Leader of the PC Party to take over. Hopefully he

can do what they are hoping he can do.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, to the situation in this Province here, we

have a Leader here of whom we are quite proud. We will see this man sitting on that side

of the House over there in the next election.

Mr. Chairman, to be sitting, thirty-six members on that side of the

House, with a Liberal government in Ottawa, and to have to come to the PC Party of Canada

to help save this country, says a lot about what is going on in this country today. We

have no leaders in Ottawa, that is the problem. The only leader we had is now gone to

Quebec to try and save the country.

PREMIER TOBIN: He was the leader of the fifth party.

MR. J. BYRNE: He was the leader of the fifth party, and why did you

have to go to the leader of the fifth party, I say to the Premier? He is one of the ones

who begged, begged him to go. His future is to save the country.

If you noticed, by the way, on television last night, on Channel 20,

when they had the big sign up on the back - what did they have on the back? Jean Charest.

In red, Jean, J-e-a-n. In big blue letters, Charest, to save the country. That is what is

on the go. He is a PC at heart and he always will be. He will be the man -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) taking him out of Ottawa.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, did you ever hear such a foolish statement in

your life?

MR. SHELLEY: What did he say?

MR. J. BYRNE: The member over there for Virginia Waters saying that

they are taking him out of Ottawa to save the country; not to have him in Ottawa to save

the country. Now, the Premier, your leader, the man that you bow to, and the Prime

Minister of the country, the man that the Premier bows to, begged him to go to Quebec.

So, are you now contradicting the Premier of the Province and the Prime

Minister of the country?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, for the Member for Virginia Waters to

contradict the Premier, it is not the first time and it won't be the last time, I am sure.

The other point that needs to be made with respect to the PC Party, of

course, Mr. Chairman, is: In this Province today we have, on that side of the House - I

can start naming names, I suppose. Well, I can't name names. In the last election we had -

and I am proud of this, let me tell you - the Premier of the Province and members on that

side of the House contact every member who was sitting on this side of the House at the

time and beg them to run for the Liberals. There was one person, Mr. Chairman, they didn't

contact and ask to run for the Liberals. Who do you think it was? The Member for Cape St.

Francis. They knew there was no point whatsoever to try. Mr. Chairman, two years ago they

were trying to raid the PC Party, trying to rape the PC Party two years ago provincially.

They couldn't do anything here on this side, so they went to Ottawa, Mr. Chairman.

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, because I

know the hon. member is on a roll and he is having a difficult day, accepting the fact

that Mr. Charest's future is as a Liberal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: He has recognized that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Let me finish my point.

He has recognized that his past, as a Tory, Mr. Chairman, leading the

fifth party in Ottawa, obviously is not worthy of the particular talents and skills that

Mr. Charest has, and the great contribution he can make - I know my hon. friend opposite

would agree with me - the great contribution that he can make for Canada, which is more

important than any partisan or political consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say, for the record - and members opposite, of

course, can verify this - that I contacted nobody sitting on the other side of the House

to ask them to run as a Liberal. For the record, Mr. Chairman, whenever the next election

comes along, just in case there is anybody over there itching for a red pair of shoes, I

will not contact them in the future either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. I don't mind,

I am a man, I can admit it. I stand corrected. The Premier did not contact them, but he

had other people on that side contact them. That is what he did, Mr. Chairman.

Let's get back to the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did anybody contact you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want me to name a few names for you? A former

Minister of Finance maybe? A former Minister of Finance making a few calls here and there.

Mr. Chairman, let's look at that side of the House over there now.

Let's look over there. Let's look at that side of the House. The Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, where was he? The Member for Humber East is coming in. The

Minister of Environment and Labour, where was he?

MR. SHELLEY: One of the prerequisite to get into Cabinet is you

have to be Tory first.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the Premier knows full well, and

there are other members on that side of the House who know full well, that a prerequisite

to get into Cabinet these days is to be a former PC. That is a prerequisite. Ask the

minister over there, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, ask the Minister

of Human Resources and Employment, ask the Minister of Environment and Labour. What about

MR. TULK: What about me?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a former something.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is a former `something' is right. God knows what.

He is a former `something'.

So, Mr. Chairman, that man we are proud of, a good, solid individual

who, when he stands up to speak in this House of Assembly, knows what he is talking about;

well researched. What he says you can count on; the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What are you minister of now, Energy? The Minister of

Mines and Energy: By looking at him in that chair, Mr. Chairman, it does not look like he

has much energy, I can guarantee you. Mr. Chairman, there is not too much energy coming

from that chair.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, with respect, the Minister of Mines and no Energy

sitting in the chair there, is interrupting me. So could you please ask him to be quiet.

You don't see me interrupting people when they are up speaking.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, it is 10:48 a.m. and I say to the Government

House Leader: When would you like to get this Interim Supply bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I am now going to make a few comments on the Budget which

is part and parcel of Interim Supply, of course, or Interim Supply is part and parcel of

the Budget. The government is looking for funds here now, Mr. Chairman. Just on the Budget

highlights, Mr. Chairman - and I have not had a chance to scrutinize the actual documents

themselves, but there are so many questions to be asked with respect to this Budget that

was presented here yesterday by the Minister of Finance, who was so proud to make the

announcements.

I notice here too, Mr. Chairman, that in the Budget the government has

another $30 million as a contingency fund. So they are saying that there is going to be a

deficit of somewhere around $20 million but they have $30 million here as a contingency.

So in actual fact there is a surplus of $10 million in the Budget this year. I say to the

Minister of Mines and Energy: Does he know that, that there is a $10 million Budget

surplus this year, if they were being forthright and honest with the people of the

Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, they are saying there is a $20.1 million

deficit and you have a $30 million contingency.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and for 1998-99, it is $10 million. That is the

deficit. That is what they have planned. They have a $30 million contingency fund just set

aside. So, if that was set aside there would be a surplus of $20 million. Right? So, in

actual fact you are not being forthright and honest with the people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Hypothesized, is it? So, you do not have $30 million

there. So, are you confirming for me, the Minister of Mines and Energy, that statements

the Auditor General has made in her report this year, with respect to mismanagement of the

funds, and Newfoundland Hardwoods, Newfoundland Farm Products and the hospital

corporations, that everything she said is correct? Because you said this is hypothesis.

So, you really don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, no! I am reading here, right from this. This is

it here, right in the Budget, in the government's highlights; the deficit target for

1998-1999 remains at $10 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty million dollars (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it is not. You have $30 million set aside in the

contingency for emergencies; a part of the budget, $30 million. That only started last

year. You never did it any other year. So this year, if that $30 million was not set aside

as an emergency fund, you would have $20 million surplus. That is simple. Can't you figure

that out? You went to Gonzaga. You did math, didn't you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You turned on him too. You turned on him.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is just one point. Our former gentlemen - I

don't want to get too specific.

MR. FRENCH: Jack, he never did that, did he?

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not want to get to specific. Can you figure it

out?

Anyway, another point that needs to be made, Mr. Chairman: We see the

Premier and ministers on that side of the House standing in this House of Assembly, day in

and day out, whenever it is here, fifty-five days last year, making Ministerial Statements

on good news. He gets up four or five times on the same thing, in the Media and what have

you. We don't see him announcing the bad news two or three times, Mr. Chairman. Last year

it was supposed to be a three-year Budget, and what happened? They announced all the cuts

last year, but they were not announced this year. They will be implemented this year but

they were not announced this year, Mr. Chairman.

So, once we sit back and scrutinize the Budget and the documents

themselves, and we get in committee hearings, which will start probably next week, Mr.

Chairman, then we will get to the details, we will get to the nitty-gritty, and we will

find out exactly what is going on. All the smoke and mirrors and the fluff with respect to

this Budget will be highlighted by us, as an Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I think my time may be nearly up, so I will sit down now

and see if someone else would like to say a few words. My throat is getting a bit dry, Mr.

Chairman, so what I will do is take a break and maybe get up again this afternoon or

tomorrow morning to say a few words on this.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I would also like to speak about being asked to

pass Interim Supply. I don't know whether we should or not. Like my colleague from Cape

St. Francis, I am going to have a chat with the rest of my colleagues here, because we are

not quite sure how they are managing the money that they have.

I have here a news release: Effective May 1, an additional $3 million

will be provided to increase the rates for regular assistance, food, clothing, fuel and

household maintenance, board and lodging for all clients by 2 per cent. Two per cent! So

if you are getting a $130 a month for board, now you get $132.60. If you are getting $90 a

month for board you will get an additional $1.80. I am wondering what the Minister of

Finance thinks the social service recipients are going to do with $2.60 a month.

We have here a lady who does not want to be identified. She is calling

herself Jane. A single mother raising two small children and a 2 per cent boost to her

income will probably mean being able to buy fresh bread instead of stale, but she will not

be able to buy fresh bread every day of the month because it only amounts to about 75

cents a week for each person living in the house, so that is 75 cents times three. She is

furious. She said: It is not enough to offset the rise of inflation and the knock that

low-income families took when the HST was implemented last year. How much will 75 cents

offset the cost that was put on children's clothing by HST? How much difference will it

make to her heating bill or her light bill?

These are things we have to have a very serious look at. How much

difference will 2 per cent make to a social service recipient? If I were a social service

recipient today I would be insulted. It looks so good, an additional $3 million, and it

will amount to 75 cents a week or less.

Another $500,000 will go towards a pilot project to explore income

support supplementation for single parents to help them secure employment. We have people

coming out of Memorial University who cannot secure employment. We have people coming out

of our trade schools who cannot secure employment. Where are these jobs? Yesterday the

Minister of Finance said that unemployment had gone down by 2.8 per cent. Yes, I suppose

it has, because those people are now residing in Alberta or British Columbia. It makes

your figures look good, but then if you look at the numbers of people who have left the

Province it certainly looks different, does it not?

We have our public service pensioners who are living on fixed incomes

and are begging for a raise, and this government has turned a deaf ear to them. The

average that a retired public service person is getting is $11,000 a year. Many of these

people were forced out of their jobs when this government restructured in an effort to

balance their budget. Balance their budget looks good on the backs of people who took on

financial obligations because they thought they had a job, and then they came into work

one day and there they were, gone, to go home and pay a mortgage and to take care of the

rest of the financial obligations they have on the few paltry dollars they get in pension.

They also are suffering with light and fuel bills gone up by as much as

$30 and $40 a month. One retired public servant called me and said he is getting $161 less

a month now than he did when he retired, and everything else has gone up.

This government is asking us - they would not open the House of

Assembly. All this caucus were around here for the entire month of March. We were waiting

for this House to open, but no, they brought it to the eleventh hour, so that if we do

not, in a hurry, pass Interim Supply - we have the payroll not covered, we have the social

service recipients not getting their cheques, and then it will be blamed on the

Opposition.

No one will take into consideration the fact that we were here for the

entire month of March. How cute it is, knowing that the first day of April is a pay day,

and knowing that you can bring us to the eleventh hour, and expect us to rubber-stamp what

you are going to do and how you are going to spend the money. I do not think so. We have

to give this long and serious consideration before we will pass this today.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I rise again today to speak on Interim Supply, and it is indeed a

pleasure again to do so.

Before I get started, I would like to thank the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. I am going to thank him now for his quick action. He took

action yesterday and it was quick. After the Throne Speech, out in the lobby, and I

brought it up in the House just after the Throne Speech, they used imported juice.

Yesterday I walked into the reception and they had imported juice. I brought it to the

attention of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and ten minutes later the

imported juice was off the table and the local juice was there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: So I have to thank the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

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

Again, I thank the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for

quick action. Now, with that, I have to say that when I walked in to that reception the

local juice should have been on the table to start with, but at least he took quick action

and he rectified the situation. I am not sure if he did it or not, but I will give him the

credit for doing it, because the imported juice disappeared and the local juice appeared,

and that is what it is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is a fact. Mr. Chairman, again I am going to

speak about our public service pensioners. I spoke about it in speaking to a petition

earlier today. Our public service pensioners have not had a raise since 1989, nor have our

public service employees, but our public service employees are about to get a raise. The

cost of living has gone up considerably since 1989, yet our public service pensioners have

not had an increase in their pensions.

To make matters worse for our public service pensioners, with the

exception of teachers now in this Province, our public service pensioners, when they get

to the age that they are able to collect their Canada Pension, a large porion of the

Canada Pension that they receive is clawed back from their provincial pension. While these

public service pensioners, many of them, are living below the poverty line, especially the

single pensioners, they are forced to live with a claw-back of their provincial pension

for part of what they are receiving on their federal Canada Pension.

Not only are the government refusing to give an increase to the public

service pensioners, but they are clawing back part of what they are getting on their

Canada Pension. Our public service pensioners, the people who have made this Province, the

people who have put in place much of the legislation we are still using today, the people

who have worked the front lines, the people who have served the public of this Province,

are having part of their Canada Pension clawed back from the provincial pension.

It is almost as bad as clawing back the child tax credit on the

recipients of social services benefits. What the government are doing, it amounts to, Mr.

Chairman - it is very obvious they are cash-starved, and what they are doing is they are

going after the most vulnerable people in our society, the people who have to rely on

social service benefits, our senior citizens, our pensioners, our public service

pensioners. As I said earlier today, we will continue to fight here in the House on behalf

of our public service pensioners. Our Public Service pensioners last year were hit with an

increase in their home heating, their electricity, their gasoline expenditures, and yet

without an increase in their Public Service pension.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of living has gone, for some of these people,

beyond their means. Some of these people, unfortunately, especially the single pensioners,

the seniors who have to maintain their homes, are living from cheque to cheque, and some

of them are not eating properly. I spoke to a woman just a couple of days ago who is

unable to afford her heating bill, and has confined herself to one room in her house,

keeping the doors closed and the heat off in the rest of the rooms, confining herself to

one room in her house because she is unable to afford to pay her heating bill.

Mr. Chairman, that is a sad state of affairs when the government of

this Province can force pensioners, can force social service recipients, can force

seniors, to live in that type of manner. It is shameful. It is shameful, and when we get

to government, which will be very soon, it is something that we will look towards putting

solutions in place to help these people, instead of just surviving from cheque to cheque,

feel that they are valued members of our society, feel that they are valued members of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, valued citizens.

Mr. Chairman, we will continue to fight on behalf of the seniors, the

social services recipients of this Province. We will continue to fight on behalf of the

people of the Province when government puts in place such tax grabs as the fee that they

are charging on containers; and we heard from the minister only a couple of days ago that

the government made a profit on charging fees on containers this year. However, when they

figure that the amount of containers goes up from 50 per cent to 60 per cent or 70 per

cent or 80 per cent, he said that government will have to start putting more back into

that - they will not have a profit there any longer - but right now they have a profit.

They have a profit on fees that they are charging on licences to catch rabbit or to hunt

moose.

Mr. Chairman, while there have not been tax increases in the past

couple of years, direct tax increases, there have been increases in everything else,

everything to which this government has put their hand.

We are still deciding at which point we will grant Interim Supply, but

I can tell you that we will give very careful scrutiny to the Budget that was released

yesterday and we will fight to right the wrongs that government has put in place.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am just going to get up and make a few concluding remarks on this

debate as it draws to a close on Interim Supply, on Bill 2. I think we have made some very

good points in the last few hours - today and in the last couple of days - in this debate.

Interim Supply, we are certainly not going to hold up this House or

anybody on the Interim Supply. We are going to make sure that people can get paid and

things can go on in the Province. We are going to make sure that the Minister of Justice

gets paid. We are going to make sure that everything can run smoothly in the Province. We

would not do anything that is not responsible, to make sure that the Province progresses

and moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points I would like make,

especially on yesterday's Budget Speech. Yes, there is a dab of good news here and there,

and some things for which we can commend the government, for making moves in the right

direction, albeit small steps. It seems like every comment we have heard from anybody is

that it is a move in the right direction but they are all small, baby steps.

The payroll tax, the dreaded payroll tax that is a hindrance to so many

businesses in this Province, that was brought in by this Administration, should be taken

out, wiped out.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what they have done is, they have just started in an

attempt to show, in good faith, that they are going to move in that direction. It was not

far enough and certainly not fast enough. We have been at them for years to eliminate that

tax because it is a hinderance on jobs. That is one point.

When it comes to education, yes, there are small scholarships for some

people in this Province, and that is certainly going to help us. Again, it is a move in

the right direction, but the massive problem of post-secondary education in this Province

is student debt. The magnificent debt that young people find themselves with after three,

four or five years in post-secondary institutions, that is the main problem.

Really what this Budget did was dab at a lot of little things. It did

not really attack and declare war on some of the major issues in the Province. For

instance, nowhere in this Budget was it discussed or even mentioned the out-migration in

this Province. More than 12,000 people last year, the population of a community like Grand

Falls-Windsor, was wiped off the map in one year. Out-migration was not addressed at all.

Rural renewal, rural revitalization, whatever names you want to put on

it, yes, there are some good samples around the Province of good things happening, no

doubt about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You should be listening. I said, there are some things

happening with rural renewal, some have more to do with private individuals more than

anything else.

There is one last point I would like to make here today. I have already

addressed this before, and it came to me about a year ago as I spoke to students at the

community college in Baie Verte. One of the instructors there at the time, Mr. Dave

Ackerman, raised a question and we had quite a lively debate on it. As we discussed it, it

was unanimous amongst students and instructors there of the desperate need in this

Province for this government to address the problem and the link between training and

jobs.

There is nothing more discouraging than to see a young person go

through a training program, whether it is a one-year course, a three-year course or a

five-year course, and then go to an employer who then says to him: I am sorry, but you do

not have the experience.

Obviously, they do not have the experience until somebody gives them

that experience. A major problem in this Province is that linkage between training and the

job and the workforce. It is the most frustrating line any young person can get, when they

go out to find a job and are told they cannot get hired because they have no experience.

What is needed in this Province, and I agreed with those students and

that instructor that day - and this is fourth time I have mentioned this in the House of

Assembly with the minister present - that an entrepreneurship program, a full-fledged

apprenticeship program, should be put in place in this Province to help people go from

training to jobs. This is something that should be looked upon. The minister has told me

on two different occasions that it is been looked at. My only question now is: How long is

it going to take? Is it just being discussed, or are some serious discussions going on?

I would serve notice here today, Mr. Chairman, that government should

expedite that process and put something in place so that people know that when they train

in this Province they can go into a workforce, that the government is going to give them

that linkage, that connection, so that they can go into the workforce; not discourage them

so we see them leave in droves. I talked a few minutes ago about the out-migration, and

how many people are leaving this Province.

We want to be able to say to the young people in this Province: Train

here and we will get you into the workforce here. We will help you do that. That is what

is going to rebound this Province. No big mega-projects are going to rebound this

Province. It is not the Hibernias and the Voisey's Bays; it is all those small projects

where a small employers puts five and six people to work. That is what is going to rebound

this Province, bit by bit.

The thing about doing it bit by bit and a small piece at a time, Mr.

Chairman, if you build on a lot of little things then it is a strong basis for an economy.

That is how we grow. And a person with five or ten people to employ is just as important

and just as solid. Also, this boom and bust... I know, coming from a mining town, what it

is like for a boom and bust: 600 people working in a mine in Baie Verte and all of a

sudden the mine is closed down, and the whole town. They are hanging in there though, Mr.

Chairman. Do you know why they are hanging in there? Because all around my district, which

I am sure is similar to many parts of this Province, people themselves are getting

involved, to be entrepreneurs and to come up with a business idea that is going to put

three, four, five or twenty people to work.

There is a sawmill industry that is unfolding in front of us, and in my

district the sawmill operators themselves have gotten together to come up with an idea of

an integrated sawmill. That was initiated by them. That is an attitude in this Province,

that we have to diversify and we have to change the way we look at things.

The government has to - I have said it here before - instead of rolling

out the red tape, roll out the red carpet. Encourage these people, these young

entrepreneurs, to follow through. Do not let them come into this building in here to look

for permits and go through applications and regulations so that, at the end of the day,

they give up on a good idea because they are smothered with red tape. That is what happens

so often in this Province. I know every member here gets it, rolling out red tape instead

of red carpet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberal red tape.

MR. SHELLEY: Liberal red tape, that is exactly what it is.

We have to encourage our young people to go into training, and we do

that by telling them they are not going to have a mountain of debt when they finish; and

secondly, that they are going to have some kind of apprenticeship program in this Province

where you go from training into the workforce. Let's not turn them off at the doorstep.

Let's encourage them to move on.

Those are the things that were not addressed in the Budget. It is good

to talk about the little dabs of good news, because that is about what they were, little

dabs of good news. What we need is some hard, solid policy that is going to create an

environment in this Province where people are going to want to go back to work and they

are going to be encouraged to do so. Because unless you have hope you have nothing, and

people in this Province are desperately looking for that. They were looking for it in this

Budget.

Yes, for a day or so people will jump up and down and say a couple of

good little things.

MR. J. BYRNE: Was the last election all about hope?

MR. SHELLEY: It was all about a better tomorrow. Yes, the Premier

said we had to wait for a couple of years, and we are rounding the corner. I hope we are

rounding the corner, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding in the next six to

twelve months if we are really rounding the corner. If it is this year, then we should see

the numbers of out-migration slow down, we should see the unemployment rate fall, and some

real numbers, not just arbitrary numbers made up for the sake of convenience. They have to

be solid numbers where we see people staying home, we see young people stay in training,

we see people going from training into the workforce, and happy to stay in Newfoundland

and Labrador, because that is what is going to make this Province tick, that is what is

going to turn this Province around.

If we are on a turnaround, rural Newfoundland has to see some solid

evidence of that in the next short term, because it has been waiting too long. It is like

the boy who cried wolf. Every day they say there is a better tomorrow around the corner

and it is not there. After awhile, like anybody, they are going to be tired of being told

this and they want to see something. That is what we have to look forward to.

We have to look forward to the young people in this Province saying

they believe in where they live and they want to stay here. The analogy I have always used

is the staff room. I have been involved in staff rooms where you have teachers who have

been there for years, and then you have the new teachers coming in. If you get two or

three new teachers on staff, what happens is they encourage, and their enthusiasm flows

over into the rest of the staff, and you see new programs started, you see teams being

coached, you see all those types of things happen.

The same analogy must be applied to the Province. If we see more young

people stay around, come up with ideas, they exude enthusiasm. That is what we have to do.

We have to keep the young people in this Province who are going to be looking up and

saying: I want to stay here, I am going to be working here, I am going to be part of an

economy that is going to evolve into the new technologies, the new computer systems and so

on.

Until we stop that outflow from this Province of some of our best

resource - it is not the nickel from Voisey's Bay, or the oil from Hibernia. The young

people are our best resource in this Province, the people who are going to turn the

economy around and exude the enthusiasm that we need so desperately in this Province.

That is why the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board in his Budget,

when he is discussing his Budget with his Cabinet colleagues, every time he makes a

decision he has to be thinking of the young people, the students with the debt. Those are

the people we have to put enthusiasm back into. They are the people we have to turn on to

say: You can make it here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the challenge of this government or any government, because as

we go into the new millennium there are new technologies, there is a world that is

changing so fast that we have to keep up with. I tell you, it is not going to wait for us.

The economy moves on, and either we jump into it now and get on the bandwagon with that

movement or we are going to be lost for a long time. If we continue to lose people out of

this Province at a rate of 12,000 a year...

Sooner or later it has to die down. Do you know why it has to die down?

Because people cannot afford to go away. That i