March 21, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 3

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would first of all like to

introduce to all hon. members our newest Page, Ms Farrah Carrim, who is a

student at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I also would like to welcome to the gallery today, 100

students of Grade IX Social Studies from Holy Trinity High School, Torbay, in

the District of Cape St. Francis. They are accompanied by their teachers, Bob

Hancott, Jim Moore, Katrina Moores and Rob Belliveau.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we call on Members Statements, the Chair would also

like to rule on a couple of issues that have been raised on a number of

occasions in the past. Members have raised the question about the application of

the Rule of Anticipation.

The Rule is that: "...a matter must not be anticipated if it is

contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it

is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an

equally or less effective form." That is from Erskine May, Twenty-first Edition,

page 327. The rationale behind the rule is to ensure that the time spent in

discussion in the House is used effectively. The rule "...is dependent on

the same principle as that which forbids the same question from being raised

twice within the same session." I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, 6th

Edition , Paragraph 512(1).

As was stated in a ruling of the House of Commons in 1936 by Mr. Speaker

Casgrain, quoting Campion: "...in applying the anticipation rule preference

is given to the discussion which leads to the most effective results and this

has established a descending scal

e", House of Commons Debates , February 24 th , 1936,

page 68. A bill therefore would be more effective than a motion and a motion

more effective than a question.

In the House of Assembly in the past, the rule has been strictly applied. For

example, a bill on the Order Paper would effectively block questions on the

matter being dealt with in the bill. It would theoretically be possible,

therefore, to block questions on a given subject by ensuring that a bill

relating to the matter was on the Order Paper. Because of this difficulty, many

jurisdictions have relaxed the rule. For example, in Ottawa, the Standing

Committee on Procedure recommended that the rule be abolished so that questions

anticipating Orders of the Day would not be ruled out of order on that basis

alone. In other jurisdictions, a question would be blocked only if the bill was

scheduled to be debated on the same day or if there was a reasonable probability

of the matter being debated on the same day.

Having given the matter considerable thought, and having consulted the

authorities and other jurisdictions, the Chair is of the view that the House of

Assembly should adopt the practice now being applied in many legislatures,

namely that a question will not be ruled out of order if it anticipates a matter

set down in the Orders of the Day -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - unless the matter is debated on the day the question is to

be asked.

As well, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the

New Democratic Party, has asked the Chair to consider the party's request for

greater recognition in Question Period. We have done some research on the

practices in other jurisdictions with respect to the allocation of questions to

third parties, and it appears that in many jurisdictions members other than

members of the Official Opposition are recognized even if not members of a

recognized parliamentary group. The matter is generally decided either by

agreement among members or by the Speaker using his or her discretion in a

particular setting in which he finds himself. There are no hard and fast rules,

and the practice can change as circumstances change.

In our House, as a rule, there has been an average of five questions with a

couple of supplementaries asked each day. The Chair believes that it would be

fair and appropriate at this time to recognize representatives of the

parliamentary group represented by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, to assign to him the fourth question each day, and in the future will

follow this practice. As circumstances change the matter might have to be

reviewed, but for now the Chair will recognize a member of the New Democratic

Party once a day to ask the fourth question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This might be an appropriate time as well to remind all hon.

members to try to make their questions and answers succinct, to enable the

maximum number of questions to be asked. There is a tendency on times for

members to make speeches rather than elicit and provide information.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order with respect to a matter which

was before the House on Wednesday afternoon, March 15, 2000. In doing so, my

objective is to seek clarification of a ruling made by your Honour with regard

to a point of order raised by the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that my purpose is not to

challenge the decision made by the Speaker but to seek clarification relevant to

an application of The Sub Judice Convention that will assist all

parliamentarians during their deliberations in this House.

Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition, during Question Period, was

directing questions to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

regarding tendering practices in his department. Puddister Trading Co. Ltd. has

filed an application for judicial review of the manner in which the department

conducted the tender.

The Government House Leader rose on a point of order asking the Chair to rule

the line of questioning out of order under the provisions of the sub judice

convention . The Government House Leader referred to Beauchesne's Rules

& Forms of the House of Commons of Canada , 6 th edition, when

he rose on his point of order.

Specifically he noted 409(9) which says "A question cannot deal with a

matter that is before a court," and 410(15) which reads, "Questions

should not offend the sub judice principle." Although the Government

House Leader did not use other references from Beauchesne in making his point of

order, I will note that the sub judice convention is covered extensively

in 505 to 511.

Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, in this House and in our sister Parliaments

in Ottawa and London, regarding the precedents that govern the restrictions and

disqualifications or interferences with the right of members to ask questions

during Question Period or to participate unfettered in other forms of debate.

To quote the Speaker of the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 14, 1975 when

a similar circumstance was being reviewed, he said the following relative to the

establishment of a rational approach as to how Question Period should operate. I

quote: "I much prefer to take the positive approach of attempting to arrive

at a statement of principle within which questions can be put and to reduce to

an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may limit or restrict a

Member's right to do so."

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to the operation of a parliamentary system is our

freedom of speech principles, conventions and precedents. Freedom of speech is a

basic right without which we would be hampered in the performance of our duties.

It permits parliamentarians to refer to any matter, express any opinion as they

see fit, and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the

interests of their constituents, their province, or their nation.

This basic parliamentary freedom is, to some extent, limited by the sub

judice convention . The central purpose of this convention is to protect the

parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial or persons who stand to be

affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint

imposed by the House on itself in the interest of justice and fair play. It is

important to note, as did the Speaker in the House of Commons on April 29, 1977,

that it is a convention and not a rule. Thus parliamentarians are free to

disregard it should they so resolve.

This House is not alone in seeking ways to assure all hon. members the widest

scope possible in advancing our right to speak openly and unfettered while at

the same time assuring that anything we say does not affect negatively the

rights of others to a fair trial or an impartial hearing at a tribunal of

inquiry.

On December 13, 1976, the House of Commons appointed a Special Committee on

the Rights and Immunities of Members. Very specifically, the Committee studied

extensively how the rights and immunities of members are affected by the sub

judice convention .

This Committee consulted extensively with our Commonwealth parliamentary

partners and reviewed precedents in the British and Canadian Houses of

Parliament as well as a thorough review of all pertinent research literature.

The Report of this Committee was tabled in the House of Commons in Ottawa on

April 29, 1977, by the Speaker. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the House of Commons

Journals for that day, and more specifically to pages 720-729.

While I will not mention all twenty-four statements of principle may with

regard with the sub judice convention , I will highlight some of the

salient points.

The Committee found it difficult to determine what effect a parliamentary

discussion would have on "the Court, the jury, the witnesses and parties to

an action," but the Committee concluded: "One thing that can be stated

with certainty is that the courts in interpreting statutes have no regard for

anything that might have been said in the course of parliamentary debate."

Thus, by inference, we can say that any comments that may have been said in

this House last week by the Leader of the Opposition in the asking of questions,

or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in his reply relevant to

an application by Puddister Trading Co. Limited for judicial review of a tender,

would not have been affected whatsoever by the proceedings in this House.

The sub judice convention has been consistently applied in criminal

cases. Criminal cases that are before the courts are outside the purview of the

House. This

interpretation of the sub judice convention is readily

understood and accepted as standard parliamentary practice. Numerous references

can be placed before the House where the Speaker, in fulfilling his or her

parliamentary duty, has invoked the sub judice convention to protect the

interests of all parties to a criminal proceeding.

However, as noted in Beauchesne, 507(1): "No settled practice has been

developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some

cases but not in others." In 507(2) it reads: "In civil cases the

convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage."

Although the sub judice convention was invoked in 1938 in the Canadian

House of Commons in order to prevent reference to an action for damages by

stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway, it was not invoked in May 1973 when

certain foreclosure proceedings formed the subject of an adjournment debate in

Ottawa.

Neither was it invoked in July 1973 in the House of Commons in Ottawa when

questions were asked in the House concerning specific tendering practices, the

questions being asked based on evidence which had been given by a party to an

action then currently being heard in the court.

On February 11, 1976, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, on a matter raised

by the Member for Central Nova, Elmer MacKay, the Speaker made the following

statement: "...no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to

put questions respecting any matter before the courts particularly those

relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at

trial."

Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, the customary practices of the courts and from

a reading of the House of Commons Journals relevant to both matters in 1973 and

for those debates immediately preceding the February 11, 1976, ruling, it would

be some time in the future, if at all, before the tendering practices referred

to last week in this House by the Leader of the Opposition would meet the

accepted practices for inclusion in those matters protected under the sub

judice convention .

I refer again to the 1977 Report of the House of Commons Special Committee on

the Rights and Immunities of Members. I wish to quote the entire text of

section

22 of the report as found in the Journals of the House of Commons. It reads:

"It is the view of your Committee the justification for the convention

has not been established beyond all doubt, although it would not go as far as to

recommend that it be totally abolished. Your Committee believes, however, that

any modification of the practice should be in the direction of greater

flexibility rather than in stricter application.

It is not possible to determine whether or to what extent comments made in

Parliament might affect the outcome of a trial or an inquiry. The Chair is

seldom in possession of the necessary information to determine whether or not

prejudicial effect is likely. It follows that the House should not be unduly

fettered by a convention the basis of which is uncertain. On no account should

the convention, which has been applied infrequently in years past, come to be

regarded as a fixed and binding rule. It is not reasonable, for example, that

Parliament should be any more limited in its debates concerning judicial

proceedings than the press in reporting such proceedings."

Mr. Speaker, I also note

Section 23 of the same report from which I will

quote extensively; it specifically deals with the role of the Speaker in the

application of the convention. It reads:

"It is submitted that, while there can be no substitute for the

discretion of the Chair in the last resort, all Members of the House should

share in the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems to be called

for. A Member who feels that there could be a risk of causing prejudice in

referring to a particular case or inquiry should refrain from raising the

matter. Additionally, a Member who calls for the suppression of discussion of a

matter on the grounds of sub judice should be obliged to demonstrate to

the satisfaction of the Chair that he has reasonable grounds for fearing that a

prejudice might result. Should a question to a minister touch upon a matter sub

judice , it is likely that the minister involved will have more information

concerning the matter than the Speaker. The minister might be better able to

judge whether answering the question might cause prejudice. In such a situation,

the minister could refuse to answer the question on these grounds, bearing in

mind that refusal to answer a question is his prerogative in any event. It is

the view of your Committee that the response of the Chair during question period

should be minimal as regards the sub-judice convention , and that

responsibility should principally rest upon the Member who asks the question and

the minister to whom it is addressed."

section 24, Mr. Speaker, the Committee further commented on the role of

the Speaker to say that he should only exercise his discretion to apply the sub

judice convention in exceptional cases where it is clear to him that to do

otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals and that where there is doubt

in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing the

debate and against the application of the convention. Furthermore, the Committee

noted that prejudice is most likely to occur in respect of criminal cases and in

civil cases of defamation where juries are involved.

The application by Puddister Trading Company Limited for judicial review is

clearly not a criminal matter. There are no juries involved and the civil matter

does not involve defamation of character of individuals.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is insufficient for the Government House Leader

to ask the Chair to impose the sub judice convention . He has a

responsibility to demonstrate clearly to the Chair how the discussion of a

specific matter, in this case the tendering practices of the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation, would be prejudicial and not therefore in

the public interest. Clearly, the Government House Leader did not meet this

criteria in raising a point of order last Wednesday.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I seek clarification of your decision on the point

of order raised by the Government House Leader on March 15 th . In

doing so, I acknowledge your exclusive role as the sole arbiter of parliamentary

rules in this House. I believe the ruling of March 15 th interfered

with the accustomed freedoms of speech according to all Members of the House of

Assembly and that to let the ruling stand without clarification would not only

set a precedent that is inconsistent with current practices in our sister

Parliament in Ottawa, but would also set a precedent that is inconsistent with

the spirit and intent of sections 505 to 511 of Beauchesne.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I won't take quite as long as the hon. gentleman

did in his dissertation to the Speaker. Let me just say that one of the rules of

this House that the hon. gentleman should keep in mind is not to attribute

motives to any member of this House, as he just did in his closing statements.

His dissertation was a great dissertation until he got to the end, where he

had to throw in a little bit of politics and try to question the motives of the

Government House Leader. He was great up to that point.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that there are two sides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I did not interrupt you. I sat and listened to you.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that I have the right, as does every

other member of this House, to raise a point of order when I think somebody is

out of order. If I think that asking a question is out of order, I have the

right to raise that point of order. That I did and that, I say to the hon.

gentleman, I will continue to do as long as it is within the rules of this

House; and I used, yes, two rules. I could have gone out and spent a week

researching the thing, or had Ottawa on notice researching the thing, or had the

Clerk on notice, or had somebody else on notice to research all this, but the

truth of the matter is that there is a very simple statement in Beauchesne, very

simple, 409.(9) which says: "A question cannot deal with a matter that is

before a court."

Now, I don't know how much simpler you can have it than that. It is almost

all four-letter words. I raised the issue on that point of order and the Speaker

went out and ruled, and came back and said that the hon. gentleman, the Leader

of the Opposition, was out of order. It is the right of the Member for Waterford

Valley to seek clarification, and it is his right to come in here and put

forward dissertations. I have done it myself, as the Leader of the Opposition

knows. I have done it myself, when he had to leave this Chamber, and I did it

from almost up in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to your ruling. I suspect, if I could joke a

little here, given the dissertation and the fact that the hon. gentleman must

have been up all weekend putting together that dissertation, that it will take

you some time.

We look forward to the ruling, we look forward to the clarification, and

whatever it is that the Speaker decides after doing that, we, like everybody

else in this House, will live with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to comment briefly on the intervention of the Member for

Waterford Valley. I think he has a number of important points to make. I think

the principal one was clearly that when Your Honour was called upon to make a

ruling, the exact nature of the legal proceedings was not quite put before Your

Honour by the Government House Leader, and perhaps he did not have them in hand

either. I guess it outlines the danger of being forced to make rulings without

that in front of you.

I would also urge you, in considering this, to consider the same type of

consideration in your first ruling today when you indicated that a practice

ought not to restrict questions unless it is absolutely necessary. I look

forward to hearing Your Honour's considered opinion on this when you have had

time to consider it and do further research.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Chair will certainly take the

points that have been raised by the hon. Member of Waterford Valley under

advisement; but on Wednesday of last week when the matter was raised, the hon.

minister, I believe, indicated that he would not answer the questions because

the matter had been before the court. The Chair recessed briefly to listen to

the tapes to see exactly, to review again and to hear the questions again that

the hon. member had asked, to see if they were directly related to the contract

that, as the Chair understood it at the time, was in front of the courts. Based

on that, the Chair ruled that a matter that was before the court ought not to be

raised here in Question Period.

I refer hon. members as well - because the minister did say that he would not

answer these questions - to Beauchesne 416.(2), "An answer to a question

cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by the Minister on the ground

of the public interest...."

As well, "A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating

the reason for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of order, with no

debate being allowed.... A Member may put a question but has no right to insist

upon an answer."

Based upon the information that the Chair had at that time, the Chair made

that ruling. The ruling still stands, but I will certainly take the hon. member's

points under consideration and review the whole sub judice convention.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want today to congratulate the Town of Gambo for

their victory in the 1999 Tidy Town Competition in the 1,000 to 2,500 population

category.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The competition is a joint project of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Parks and Recreation Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Women's Institutes, in cooperation with the National Communities in Bloom

Committee, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Landscape Architects,

and the Federation of Municipalities.

Gambo received a five pitcher plant status in winning this category. The

community was evaluated on such features as tidiness, environmental effort,

community involvement, landscaped areas, and was recognized for heritage

projects such as the tribute to our first Premier, the hon. J.R. Smallwood, as

well as the Newfoundland railway.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the citizens and businesses of Gambo for their

efforts in making their community one of the tidiest towns in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, March 21, has been designated as the International Day for the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination. People across the country and around the

world are participating in hundreds of activities to end racism.

To bring local attention to this event, Gonzaga High School, which is a

school in my district of St. John's East, has organized its own activity. It

is that school's goal to collect hand prints from people within the community.

These hand prints are being displayed on a giant canvas in the school for the

students and the entire community to see, and hopefully these prints will

illustrate the united effort that people are making in the fight against racism.

I would simply like to congratulate the leadership being shown by Gonzaga

High School and the students who are involved in this activity with respect to

celebrating International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

In speaking with students prior to the House opening this afternoon, an

invitation has been made to any Member of the House of Assembly, on either side,

to attend Gonzaga High School before 5:00 p.m. this afternoon and to show their

support for their very worthwhile cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last week in my reply to the Throne Speech I

acknowledged the celebration of the Labrador Winter Games 2000. Today, I would

like to acknowledge the participation and sportsmanship of the men and women

involved. So, on behalf of my colleagues from Labrador and all those in the

House, I offer our congratulations to the Board of Directors, the staff and the

volunteers. I also offer congratulations to all the medal winners at this year's

games, and I also want to acknowledge the award winners: the Town of Happy

Valley-Goose Bay on winning the Labrador Cup, which is the highest achievement

overall combined events; the Community of Nain on winning the best dressed team;

the Community of Cartwright for winning the most spirited team; and the

Community of Davis Inlet on being the most improved team at the Labrador Winter

Games 2000.

As in every games there is always one athlete who stands out in competition

and, in the Labrador Winter Games 2000, that award went to Alf Parsons of

Labrador City. Mr. Parsons was also the recipient of the outstanding athlete

award for the District of Labrador West.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

He is no stranger at the Labrador Winter Games, and is known for his high

endurance skills in skiing, skating and snowshoeing. He has become a role model

to many young athletes and over the years has challenged them to perform their

very best.

The most outstanding athlete for the District of Torngat Mountains was

awarded to Dawn Marie Rich of Davis Inlet; for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair it was awarded to Dean Burden of Port Hope Simpson; and in the District

of Lake Melville it was awarded to Shane Byrne of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Winter Games bring together young and old from all

corners of Labrador. It allows them the opportunity to share in competition and

in culture. Today we offer our congratulations to all people involved in the

Labrador Winter Games, from the 500 volunteers to the 540 athletes, for it takes

a team to make it a success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a resident of Labrador City who sadly passed

away this weekend. Marie Green resided in Labrador City all of her adult life,

and contributed in many ways to our community.

When Marie was forty-one, with the unquestionable support of her husband,

Leo, and her children, Marie decided to return to school. She successfully

completed three years of high school, while at the same time providing support

and advice to younger students. Following high school graduation, Marie attended

Carleton University and obtained a degree. She later attended the University of

Ottawa and graduated with a degree in law. She then returned to Labrador City

and established her own practice.

Shortly after setting up her practice, she was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's

disease; however, Marie refused to give up. She lost her voice a year ago and

used an electronic link to speak after typing what she wanted to say. Marie

provided legal representation for her clients right to the end.

Mr. Speaker, in today's world people of all ages are looking for heroes and

mentors. Many times they can be found in our own communities and neighborhoods.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Marie's life is a real example of what we can achieve if

we are determined and committed to pursue our dreams.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that a person's life is measured by what they

accomplish, not by the number of years they live. If that is true, Marie Green

certainly lived longer than her fifty-six years with us.

Marie leaves behind her sons, Leo Jr., and Stephen, daughter Lisa, husband

Leo, and a large circle of friends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today for just a few moments to make some comments on behalf of George

and Millie Walsh of Fleur de Lys, who are very good friends of mine. We all know

of the tragic death of their daughter just a short while ago.

Over the weekend I spent several hours with the family in their home and they

requested that I make these comments today to help them out in a small way, any

way we can. They wanted two things. One was to acknowledge the tremendous

support they received from all across the Province, and indeed across the

country, over 7,000 letters and cards to date, boxes of them in the corner, and

they are trying to read every single one of them but they know they cannot

respond. They felt so much support from all of these people. There are poems,

sketches done by artists, songs, paintings, and they wanted to first of all

thank those many people. The age range, they told me, was from a young

four-year-old in Bonavista to a ninety-two-year-old lady on the Northern

Peninsula. It was far-reaching and, of course, affected a lot of people as we

all know.

The second thing they wanted me to do was to thank some members in this House

of Assembly. First of all, the Minister of Fisheries; my colleague, the Leader

of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: - and the Member for Conception Bay South, who attended the

funeral personally. They also wanted me to thank the Premier, who gave a

personal message and spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Walsh. They also wanted me to

recognize the Member for Torngat, as a person who called them personally and

called me. Of course, with the situation in his own district, to respond to

them, they really appreciated that.

Today, they asked me to rise in this House and thank members, and indeed

people from across the Province, for their support which has helped a lot

through this long ordeal that took some twenty-six days; and, of course, it will

go on for a long time with this family. I want to thank everybody on behalf of

that family.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is with deepest regret that I inform the

House today that the life of Mr. Charlie Phillips of Conception Harbour was lost

Saturday night while operating snow- clearing equipment in the Harbour Main

area.

Mr. Phillips was a long-term employee of the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation, with twenty-nine years of service.

It is tragic that Mr. Phillips lost his life while working to make roads safe

for others. The department, in conjunction with the RCMP, is currently

investigating the accident.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my deepest sympathies to his wife, Rose, and his two

children, Leslie and Deirdre. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members when I

say our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise on behalf of my colleague, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, who

is a personal friend of the Phillips family, who is attending the funeral

function. I, too, know some of his family and I want to concur and be associated

certainly with the remarks made by the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and ask the Speaker, if he could, to send on behalf of all

Members of the Legislature our deepest sympathies to the Phillips family.

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

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we, too, offer our deepest sympathies to the

family of Mr. Phillips. That is why, in work environments all across this

Province, the most important thing is occupational health and safety. The more

we are made aware of this, and the more practices we have in place, the less

things like this will happen.

From personal experience, I can say that during my years connected with the

mining industry, many times I have been faced with visiting the families of

people who were tragically killed on the job. I certainly know to some degree

what his co-workers and family are going through at this time, and our thoughts

are with them.

Thank you.

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to update my honourable colleagues about several new

developments taking place in our technology sector, which will have a positive

impact on our rural communities and rural-based businesses.

Recently, NewTel Communications announced a $40 million network enhancement

program, Network 2000, which will enable a total of 310 communities throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit from the latest in telecommunications

technology. This is in keeping with a commitment NewTel made to government in

1997 to have completed a 100 per cent digital network by the end of 2000. The

completion of the upgrade had to be extended slightly, until early 2001, because

of emergency upgrades. To date, NewTel has recruited fifty new employees to work

on the project.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne last week, this is

something we have been strongly encouraging the company to do for quite some

time, and we are pleased that they are implementing these upgrades.

The Network 2000 program has already begun. The company has told us that they

have condensed the implementation from four years to eighteen months, the

shortest time frame that is physically possible, given that lines must be

upgraded in sequence.

The program is intended to provide enhanced telecommunication services to

virtually all areas of our Province during the next two years.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, in many rural communities throughout our

Province, network congestion and lack of local dial access to the Internet have

been major problems. These concerns were expressed by many people during the

Jobs and Growth Consultations last fall, and during the BayBYTES Rural

Technology Forum held in Port Blandford last September.

These investments made by NewTel help to address these issues. While the

upgrades will take a while to complete, they are an important step in providing

rural Newfoundland and Labrador with better service, which is particularly

important during emergencies. When completed, the upgrades should also open up

new opportunities for rural businesses, especially in our growing technology

industry.

Mr. Speaker, these upgrades represent a recognition of the importance of

technology to businesses in all areas of our Province. Through Operation ONLINE,

an organization that advances and promotes our IT sector, my department is also

working to open up new opportunities in rural areas.

Operation ONLINE is currently hosting a series of workshops on starting a new

information technology business and on using IT as a business enabler through

Internet-based applications and web sites. Conducted in partnership with the

Genesis Centre, the Canadian Technology Network and the Y-Enterprise, the first

sessions were recently held in the central region and approximately 100 people

attended the three workshops.

Operation ONLINE is planning more workshops throughout the Province, with the

next series scheduled for the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula at the end

of April.

Operation ONLINE is also working with the four Avalon Zonal Boards to develop

an e-commerce pilot project. The focus will be mainly for tourism and small

manufacturing companies, such as craft producers. To date, thirty companies have

been identified to go through the pilot project, which will show them how to use

e-commerce for their businesses. When the project is completed, the businesses

will be fully e-commerce enabled. The project will also serve as a model for

other areas throughout our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the initiatives I have outline today are important steps in

further integrating technology into our rural communities. Through these and

other initiatives, businesses throughout our Province will be better equipped to

use technology to compete in the global arena.

Thank you.

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

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

I would like to congratulate the minister on her new role as PR person for

NewTel.

While I recognize the importance of upgraded services in rural areas, not

only for emergency purposes but to ensure that businesses in rural areas are

online and have equal opportunity as businesses in St. John's, I have to say

that I read The Telegram this weekend and I saw the comments by CRTC, how

they had to push NewTel to make these upgrades, how they had to pressure NewTel

to do it in a quicker period of time. For the minister to stand in her place

today and try to take credit for something that NewTel and CRTC have worked out

between them is beyond me. How this government try to attach their name to every

good news story that happens in this Province, whether they have had any

involvement in it or not, is unbelievable.

This government should have been pushing NewTel years ago to upgrade the

services to alleviate any emergency concerns in rural areas in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have seen stories of how communities have experienced

emergencies and emergency response units could not be contacted; how people had

to go door to door to notify firefighters to respond to an emergency. This

should have been done years ago and your department, minister, should have

pushed for this to take place years ago instead of standing in your place today

trying to take credit for something that is happening far too late.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased to see that some progress is being made. Obviously

there are terrific deficiencies, particularly in rural Newfoundland, with

respect to service, but I too wonder whether this is just a press release for

NewTel or the government trying to make up for the fact that since the CRTC has

taken control over the regulation of NewTel this government has failed to really

take a serious approach to ensuring that this Province has adequate

participation at these hearings in Hull, Quebec, hen they are held. They have

moved it from the Public Utilities Board, no local control over it, and perhaps

the minister can tell this House what she and her government have done to ensure

that there has been strong representation before the CRTC by this government

about these issues. Obviously in Newfoundland Operation ONLINE is doing great,

making great strides, and we are pleased to see that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am pleased to inform the Legislature that government is providing

$1.5 million in provincial funding towards construction of a new $3.5 million,

30-unit Janeway Hostel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am sure they will look forward to hearing more

details about it tomorrow in the Budget. They will hear it again tomorrow.

This facility will be located near the new Janeway Hospital which is

currently under construction at the Health Sciences complex in St. John's and

will replace the services currently provided by the existing hostel at

Pleasantville.

The remaining $2 million for this hostel for estimated construction costs

will be offset through fund-raising initiatives and revenue from room rentals.

The hostel is expected to be operational one year after construction commences.

Meanwhile, work is progressing on

schedule at the new Janeway Hospital and it is

slated to be officially opened this coming September.

We believe it is important for parents and families to be close to their

children while they are hospitalized. The hostel will provide families with both

a place to stay and a level of comfort in knowing they are near their children

while they receive treatment.

Mr. Speaker, this project is just another example of this government's

commitment to quality health care services for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance got two years out of that announcement, the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs got almost three years out of that

announcement, and now the new Minister of Health and Community Services is going

to try it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a shame.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, what a shame. When the Health Care Corporation said on

October 14 th in The Telegram in response to my news release:

It has been in the plan since 1995 when it was announced, it stated, and it was

going to be opened by the fall of this year, they said. That is what they said

publicly on the airwaves, the fall of this year.

I want to ask the minister how he can tell us the Janeway is on

schedule when

they announced in 1995 it was going to be opened the fall of 1998, then the

spring of 1999, the fall of 1999, the winter of 2000, and now it is going to be

September? Also, how can he say it is on

schedule when it was going to be $70

million, then it grew to $100 million, then $130 million, and $135 million, and

it is still growing? It is a very inaccurate statement, I say to the minister. I

think when you get your new statements, not only should you have them a little

current, but you should have them accurate in the process too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Furlong (inaudible) I remember when!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Regardless how many times it has been announced, it is a much needed facility

to be established when the Janeway opens. The hostel is very important,

particularly to a hospital that cares for children. I would ask the minister to

carefully consider one thing when the hostel does open and that is the cost of

staying at the hostel, because it can be very expensive. A lot of times it is

for long term. The rate now for a family to stay at the current hostel at the

Health Sciences is $60 per night, and most times that involves eating meals at

the cafeteria. So I would ask the minister to be really considerate when it

comes to establishing the price for the rooms at the hostel and take into the

consideration the people of this Province's ability to pay.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform hon. members of the allocation of

$725,000 for senior high schools to purchase graphing calculators.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: These calculators are used by teachers and students to enhance

mathematic and science programs offered in the school system. This technology

will support the delivery of the new senior high mathematics curriculum which

was developed conjointly by the Atlantic region. Implementation of this

curriculum began last September for a small portion of the student population

and will extend to include all grade X students and a small portion of grade XI

students in the Province by next September.

While this technology currently exists in some schools in this Province,

there is inconsistency from school to school. These new funds will help to level

the playing field between small and large schools in the Province. Initially,

students were expected to pay for these calculators themselves and now we are

covering the cost of those.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that supporting curriculum sometimes goes beyond

the traditional approach which was characterized by the supply of only print

material. Technology can enhance the quality, depth and breadth of the learning

experience and I'm pleased that this government is able to provide the means

to purchase it. This expenditure demonstrates this government's continued

commitment to providing quality programs to ensure excellence in teaching and

learning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will make a suggestion to the minister that she lend the Minister of

Finance one of those graphing calculators. Maybe he will get the job growth

numbers right and will put it out for the Province to see.

Any time you see enhancements in technology in education in this Province we

are delighted to see it, but there was something that was mentioned here that I

want to make sure the minister follows up on: that the smaller and rural schools

also have their share of this technology when it comes to graphing calculators,

computers in schools, NewTel communications, anyway you look at it. Make sure

that every school - especially in the rural parts of Newfoundland which many

times are left out when it comes to enhancements in technology and so on - can

avail of these same opportunities that happen in the urban areas of the

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly welcome the announcement and particularly the fact that

government is setting out to ensure that there be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are particularly pleased that government is underscoring the desire of

ensuring that this new technology is available equally to students throughout

the Province. That is a very important principle in our schools. Certainly the

support for this curriculum effort is to be commended. I hope that the

government is equally swift and to the point in delivering a new curriculum in a

Newfoundland history course which I know has been announced already, which we

look forward to seeing being implemented very shortly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask hon. members to join me,

and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in recognizing the International

Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has designated March 21, 2000 as

the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador joins with others who are celebrating this day.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for my colleagues when I say that this

Province is committed to the belief that equal opportunity and treatment should

exist for all people.

The elimination of racism and racial discrimination can be accomplished

through understanding and respect for the dignity of all people, and is the

social and moral responsibility of each person.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to attend a very special

event at Memorial University. In an effort to promote public awareness of this

important day, Hands Against Discrimination, an organization formed through the

School of Social Work at Memorial University and the Association of New

Canadians, hosted an interactive display to invite people to make their pledge

to end discrimination.

As part of the display, participants were encouraged to place their hands in

tole paint, and then place them on a piece of treated canvas. Participants were

then asked to sign their name above their hand print as a symbol of their

pledge.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take their opportunity to congratulate the organizers

of this event. I would also like to repeat their message, and this Province's

message, that discrimination is a serious social problem experienced by people

worldwide. It is important that we stand up for those who have been

discriminated against and those who will be affected by racial discrimination in

the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to essentially repeat the comments that were made during

the Statements by Members earlier this afternoon, in conjunction with the

comments made by the Minister of Justice. Perhaps what may be most appropriate

at this time is simply to repeat the following: "Let it never be said by

future generations that indifference, cynicism, or selfishness made us fail to

live up to our ideals."

That particular expression was made by Nelson Mandela in the year of 1996,

and I think it is true that we keep that particular ideal in our minds today as

we remember International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, both

at the post-secondary level in our community - at the University, as was

mentioned by the minister - and, as I indicated earlier, what is taking place in

a particular school in our community this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join with the minister, and I am sure all hon. members, in

condemning racism in our world and in our Province, and underline the fact that

we must treat all peoples with understanding and respect. We must avoid

stereotypes and judgements based on racial and ethic background.

I think that is particularly important not just in a theoretical way but also

in a very practical way in our Province, particularly in terms of how we

understand and relate to our Aboriginal peoples as we work with them to resolve

problems and build a future for all of us in our Province.

Both of those events - the one at the University, I have already been there,

and I am attending the one at Gonzaga - are important events that bring the

message home to people throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Premier. The government has a decision report

from the C-NOPB, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, relating to

an application from the Hibernia Management Development Corporation to increase

annual production from the Hibernia field from 49.5 million barrels to 66

million barrels. That constitutes, as I am sure the Premier is aware, a 33 per

cent increase in the depletion rate at the Hibernia field, a 33 per cent

increase in the time it will take to further deplete and exhaust that

non-renewable resource.

I would like to ask the Premier this: What did the Canada-Newfoundland

Offshore Petroleum Board request of the Province, or what did they recommend?

Did they propose that the Province support this increase, or did they propose to

the Province that you reject it out of hand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the decision thus far,

and what has been approved thus far, is the ability of the consortium to raise

the daily production rates offshore. There has yet been no decision to lift the

annual production rate. That matter is now being looked at by the C-NOPB, and

looked at as well by the Minister of Mines and Energy, and I know, in due

course, will be looked at by Cabinet.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is a lot closer to decision time than the

Premier may be aware. The Province has thirty days to respond to the C-NOPB

Decision Report. They have that in their possession. They already have the

decision report in their possession. You have thirty days to respond. It is not

a lot of time, I say to the Premier, considering the importance of this decision

on the provincial economy.

I would like to ask him this: Has the Department of Mines and Energy or

Executive Council commissioned any studies whatsoever to determine the impact of

faster depletion on this Province? What will it mean in terms of economically,

industrial benefits, financially, royalties, et cetera, revenue? And, if so, who

is doing the studies? Is it just Executive Council and the Department of Mines

and Energy, or have you engaged some outside source?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, all of that analysis is being done under the

direction and the guidance and the leadership of the Minister of Mines and

Energy, and that information will be brought forward to the appropriate

committee of Cabinet to be looked at. We will take the time necessary to do a

proper analysis, but all of the issues that have been raised by the Leader of

the Opposition are the right issues and indeed form part of the package of

materials to be considered prior to the Province coming to a decision. As the

Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the Province has, at the end of the

day, not only the obligation but the right to make its views on this matter

clear before any final decision is taken.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will go one step further, Mr. Speaker. The Province has

the right to dictate mode of development. That is the right, it is inherent in

the Atlantic Accord, spirit and intent.

One of the conditions, I say to the Premier, that you have attached to Voisey's

Bay development, for example - extremely important - is that the company accept

a rate of development that extends over a twenty to twenty-five year period,

that provides long-term sustainable sort of development for the people of the

Province, in revenue to the government, both in jobs and opportunities for

people in the Province, and in terms of royalties, I would assume, and taxation

from that point of view.

The Atlantic Accord approved a rate of development for the Hibernia

development -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get right to it.

- that would extend the life of benefits for the Hibernia field over a

similar period. I want to ask the Premier: What could possibly persuade

government, given the track record of the C-NOPB which has not been very good

whatsoever with respect to insuring benefits, first consideration benefits to

Newfoundland and Labrador, what would persuade government to grant such an

increase? Why not reject it out of hand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and his party

may make policy on the fly, but the government does not.

I am very surprised that the policy adopted by the Leader of the Opposition

and his party, at the direction and under the leadership of the former Premier,

on the question of the transmission line, has not been raised in Question Period

yet, even though the House is opened now into its second week.

Mr. Speaker, simply having a declaration that one is going to do something,

no matter what the cost - for example, build a transmission line, whether it is

to the best interest of the Province or not, whether it is the most efficient or

not, whether it brings the most benefits or not, and to do it because it might

be politically attractive, even if in the long term it does not make any sense -

that may be the way that party opposite makes policy. It is not the way we do

it. We are going to take our time, carefully consider all of the issues, and

then we will come to a decision. We do not make decisions out of hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: So the Premier is aware of it, second Question Period.

Stick around; we have lots for you, Premier, lots of questions for you. At least

I know that at least one Brian I know has his head squared right when it comes

to resources in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the Premier of the Province.

Now, let me ask you this: When it comes to the track record of the C-NOPB -

it is an important issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important issue.

I would like to ask the Premier: Would he make a commitment today that, in

view of the fact that the Premier said the Minister of Mines and Energy has

commissioned studies - they are investigating it, they have thirty days, which

is not necessarily thirty days now, it could be less than that - and in view of

the long- term implications of such a decision that may be taken, will the

Premier, on behalf of government, make a commitment that before you make a

decision to approve or disapprove of the board's decision, will you allow a

thorough public debate at least to take place in this Legislature on the issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is different. I thought the Leader of

the Opposition was going to ask us for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the

subject, which is generally the way the Opposition Party has been going these

days.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all of the issues associated with this

question, as the Leader of the Opposition would expect us to. We are going to

take our time, because the consequence for Newfoundland and Labrador is long

term and serious. We are not going to make up positions out of hand or on the

back of an envelope. We are going to go at this in a proper fashion.

The Leader of the Opposition said at least he knows that one Brian has his

head squared on right. Well, the Brian he is referring to, I assume, is Brian

Peckford. The last time he had a major policy initiative for the future of the

Province, it was to grow pickles out in Mount Pearl and turn us into the

cucumber capital of all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in that kind of policy development. We

really aren't. We want to do things properly and do things right.

When the Leader of the Opposition talks about regimes and long-term

consequences, take a look at the Hibernia deal put in place by the last Brian

who occupied this chair. That deal gives us half the revenues with double the

oil compared to the regime that was negotiated by this government under the

Terra Nova package.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. On

October 8 last year, I raised the question of whether a new hostel would be

built at the new Janeway hospital site to accommodate parents who have to come

in from outside the city. The Health Care Corporation responded and said there

has always been a plan, from day one, for a new hostel. In fact, the Corporation

said it would be a $3 million extension to the existing Agnes Cowan Hostel at

the General Hospital site and it will open in the fall of 2000. The plans have

been ready, they have indicated, for some time. In fact, since 1998, they

indicated. They even faxed to one of the media a copy of those plans when I

raised that issue.

I ask the minister: Is yours a re-announcement today rather than an

announcement? Is it an actual new announcement of a new $3.5 million for a

hostel that is separate from the Agnes Cowan site or is it the one that was

announced that is going to be a renovation of the Agnes Cowan Hostel site?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because I know the hon. member likes to have information and facts that are

correct, to my knowledge there was never an announcement that the current hostel

at the Health Science complex would be renovated or expanded. There was always

the intention to have a separate hostel available for the Janeway families of

patients who are in the Janeway facility.

The reason there wasn't an announcement before is because today, with the

announcement outside the Legislature, and here with a Ministerial Statement,

this is the first time that anybody has contributed actual cash to this

particular project, $1.5 million today, which I am sure the hon. member is glad

we are contributing to the cost of the project, for a total project of $3.5

million. It will be built parallel to the existing hostel. There was a schematic

at the press conference today. It shows that it will be connected by a walking,

fixed-link tunnel so that people do not have to go outside. They can leave that

hostel, go through the existing hostel though a tunnel, and go right into the

Janeway to visit with the children who are at that facility.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The vice-president of the Health Care Corporation stated in The Telegram on

October 14, and he also stated in the media, over the airwaves, on that day,

that has been their plan in place. It is a $3 million extension of the existing

Agnes Cowan Hostel. That is why I ask that to the minister, if the Health Care

Corporation is on record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister that if he is not up to scratch on

what is happening there he should quickly try to do it in the department.

Guarantees were given that at least the entire professional staff who are

going to be working at the new Janeway will be dedicated to patients in that

facility. Recently, the Health Care Corporation has been talking to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union about changing that guarantee. I just

want to ask the minister: Will he repeat the assurance that the Janeway will

have a dedicated professional staff for all medical services at the new Janeway

hospital?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the level of research that the hon. member puts into the

questions. I can only refer him to the letter to the editor in today's copy of

The Telegram from Sister Elizabeth which outlines that the Janeway will

be a separate facility. Even though it is physically linked and on the same

property, there will be a separate facility dedicated to the needs of children

in Newfoundland and Labrador. A children's hospital, the Janeway Hospital,

will just move to a new site.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Victims of violence such as rape, assault and spousal abuse, in most Labrador

communities, have nowhere to turn. They do not have shelters. In many cases if

there is abuse - and lots of times the perpetrators are aware of this - the

police cannot get in for three or four days. The group, Labradorians for

peaceful communities, has been working to educate government about the need to

provide funding this year to address the problem. So far their biggest obstacle

has been to get the members to listen. Will this government now commit to

provide full funding this year, under the provincial strategy against violence,

for the Labrador region?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the announcement we made last week on the

Province's strategy for violence prevention indicated at the time that we were

working very closely with the regional coordinating committee in Labrador, and

they are doing some very fine work in bringing together all of the stakeholders

throughout Labrador to try and address this very serious and complex issue. We

indicated at the time that we were looking at special measures to support the

efforts of this group, to determine what their needs are and to support the work

that they are doing. We also indicated at that time that of course there was

another very separate initiative, which was underway through the Premier

himself, to try and address some of the serious social issues that exist in

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are paying very close attention to the needs of Labrador. We

have earmarked special funds to support the work that the committee is doing

there. I have communicated with the individuals who are involved in the

committee, who are working on this, as late as last week through my office,

through the Women's Policy office, and I believe they have every assurance

that the work they are trying to do over the coming months will be fully

supported by this government.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: That certainly contradicts the contents of a letter I have

a copy of here from Shirley Squires. They have all met and she has stated that

she has not heard from anybody. She has received one acknowledgment and that has

been from the Premier. What she is saying is they need full funding this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I ask her to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That was quoting her. On March 13 the strategy announced

funding for Central, Western and Eastern Avalon regions, while the massive

oversized Labrador region is not going to come on stream until next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Will the minister clarify? Have you now just said that

Labrador will be on stream this year as they have requested?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, just after this announcement was made there were

some questions that were posed by the media with respect to Labrador to try and

clarify this issue, and at that time I did make a public statement through the

media. What I indicated was what I have just indicated to the member in response

to her original question.

We have been in contact with the people who are working on the committee

against violence in Labrador. We know what their strategy is for the coming

months and we have been working very closely with them to design that strategy.

We have put in place the appropriate funding to support their efforts over the

coming months. In addition to that, of course, there are the other initiatives

which are being undertaken under the Premier's attention. So I have certainly

followed through with the members of the committee to provide them with this

information, to clarify the misinterpretation that existed last week around this

subject. As I indicate, members of the regional coordinating committee now

understand that the efforts they have underway, the plans they have made, will

be able to be supported, where there will be sufficient financial resources in

place for them to carry through with their plans into the next year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier regarding the funding for health care in the

federal budget. The Minister of Finance has produced one dollar of tax relief

for every two cents being offered to health care in this country. I want to ask

the Premier whether he has any confidence that the federal government will in

fact respond to the actual number one priority of Canadians which is our health

care system and not continue to show their lack of priority by giving fifty

times as much to tax relief as the health care system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, ce n'est pas vrai.

The question is a serious one and it deserves a serious answer. I believe the

to more funding for the health care system of Canada. As you know, there is a

meeting of ministers of health at the end of this month. There is a second

meeting scheduled for May. The Prime Minister on the weekend just past at his

party's annual convention has indicated that there will be a First Ministers

meeting to follow these two meetings, and others if they are required of the

health ministers. The Prime Minister has indicated over the last forty-eight to

seventy-two hours that there is also a need for more funds.

So I concur with the Leader of the NDP when he says that any country that can

afford a measure of tax relief such as that which was contained in the last

Budget can afford to put more into health care as well. I believe it is possible

in this country, given the projected surpluses, to do both, to both have a fair

measure of tax relief and at the same time to sustain and afford a publicly

accessible health care system in Canada.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Both the Prime Minister and this Premier are on record as saying that

under-funding of health care is the road to a private two-tiered health care

system. I would like to ask the Premier to state to the people of Newfoundland

unequivocally and absolutely that his government will not go down that path of

requiring patients to pay for health care in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can give an absolutely clear and

unequivocal commitment on behalf of everybody on this side of the House - I

would suspect on behalf of members of the House generally - that there will be

no introduction of two-tier privatized health care in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, not now and not ever. It simply won't happen.

I would go one step further, and that is to remind us all that the health

care issue and the commitment to quality health care is not really a partisan

issue. The member knows - he is the Leader of the New Democratic Party - that in

the Province of British Columbia the NDP government there is struggling to deal

with the issue of maintaining a quality health care system. In the Province of

Saskatchewan, an NDP government has closed over the last number of years fifty

hospital or community health based facilities trying to find efficiencies.

The fact is, health care has been increasing at about 8 per cent to 10 per

cent a year over the last four or five years and no government anywhere can

afford to sustain a health care system whose costs are growing at that pace. So

on the one hand we need to have enough money to sustain the system, but on the

other hand we need to find efficient management systems and a way of delivering

services that are affordable over the long term.

People do not want us to simply throw money at the problem, although it

requires more money; they also want us to run the system in an efficient manner.

That is what we are going to do and the Minister of Finance will go a

considerable ways towards setting the template for that direction on behalf of

all of the members of government tomorrow with his Budget.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of

Environment and they are regarding the proposed sites for schools at the Four

Bay Road location in Milltown where parents are concerned about having the

school built under a dam, and in Arnold's Cove where parents are concerned

about their children attending a school being built under the pollution of an

oil refinery smoke stack.

Minister, I am asking will you conduct a full environmental assessment that

will take into account the concerns, both safety and environmental, of the

parents in these areas?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the first part of the question that was asked by my critic across the

House regarding Bay d'Espoir, there has been no decision made by the board as

to where the school will be, what the location would be, and until such time as

a particular location has been arrived at by the board, duly elected by the

people in that area, then there is nothing in a sense for the Department of

Environment to do.

On the other situation in Arnold's Cove, I want to remind the member

opposite that there is now a school in Arnold's Cove. It has been there for

years. There is a senior citizens' home existing already in Arnold's Cove.

That has been there for years. I also want to say to him, as a part of the last

certification of operation between ourselves and the refinery at Come By Chance,

increased monitoring has been put in place to monitor and test. If there was an

inquiry to be done today for that, an environmental assessment, then it would

give us no more information than we already have. What I want to say to him as

well is that the school board has already been in contact with the Department of

Health and has addressed that particular issue. There is nothing that would

prevent that particular school from going in Arnold's Cove.

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

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

Minister, many parents would not choose to build their home in an area under

a smoke stack or in an area of high pollution. People have a choice. When

government builds schools in areas such as these, families have no choice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his supplementary.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, families are compelled to take their children

where schools are built. Clearly, there are conflicting views on health and

safety in this particular area in Arnold's Cove. Are you prepared to force

parents to have their children attend this school and possibly the school in

Milltown, should that be the chosen site, where they feel their children would

be at risk?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, there has been no decision made as to what is going to

happen in Bay d'Espoir. So it is hypothetical for anything that the school

board - I think they are going to make a decision next Tuesday, March 28. At

that particular time we will know what the site is going to be allocating for

the school in Bay d'Espoir.

When it comes to the situation in Arnold's Cove, the Department of Health

has been involved with our department and there is no reason why the school

cannot be built in Arnold's Cove.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are for the Minister of

Education. Minister, the government promised in the Speech from the Throne to

respond quickly to the recommendations of the ministerial panel on education

delivery. How quickly will you respond, minister, and will there be funding in

tomorrow's Budget to fully implement the panel's recommendations?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have already said publicly that the report by

the ministerial panel on education delivery in the classroom has been delayed by

a month. We expect to have it now by the end of March. However, there were some

recommendations that needed to be taken into consideration in terms of planning

for the Budget. The co-chairs of the panel did deal with those recommendations

so that I would be in a position to speak to my colleagues about the needs for

the upcoming school year.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again I say to the minister, you have met with Dr. Sparkes

and Dr. Williams and they have briefed you and your officials on recommendations

they will present in this published report. You have had time to respond. There

is something coming down in the Budget but again, I say to the minister, the

ministerial panel on education delivery has been delayed. We have seen reports

before being delayed. I am asking you, are you using this delay in finalizing

the report for publication simply as an excuse for doing nothing for another

year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the hon. member in such a good

mood at the beginning of this week after St. Paddy's Day.

We are hiding absolutely nothing. We are delaying absolutely nothing. In

fact, the timetable given to the co-chairs to get back to us with respect to the

report was very tight. In fact, they had many more consultations than they had

anticipated and wanted to make sure that anyone who wanted to have an input in

this process were able to do so. That has happened. The panel will in fact be

giving me their report at the end of March. I do not have their report. I am not

using this time to rewrite anything. Clearly, the completed report will be

brought to my office at the end of March.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I say to the

minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I read your comments in The Telegram and

you were very enthusiastic, glowing about the wonderful meeting you had with the

Minister of HRD, while you were on your trip to Ottawa to endorse another person

sitting on the opposite side with his aspirations.

In his meeting with Jane Stewart when he talked about giving the intensity

rule for EI change, I ask the minister: When will the unemployed people in this

Province start seeing those improved benefits on their EI cheque?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: Yes, my second question.

I'm very happy to be able to report to the House that the delegation from

our Province had a very successful few days in Ottawa over the past weekend. We

were able to persuade the Prime Minister of the country to do something to fix

the UI program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We were able to persuade the governing party of this Province

to pass a resolution calling for the elimination of the intensity provision from

the Employment Insurance Act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and the delegation of the Minister for Development and Rural

Renewal, the Member for Topsail and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and

myself had a very successful meeting with the Minister of Human Resource

Development and persuaded her to come down to our Province in the next few weeks

and to help us work out ways to improve the employment insurance system in our

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 39 of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary Act, 1992, I hereby table the 1998-1999 Annual Report of the RNC

Public Complaints Commission.

As well, in accordance with

section 13 of the Auditor General's Act, 1991,

I hereby table the Annual Report of the Auditor General on the audit of the

financial statements of the Province and her report on the reviews of

departments and Crown agencies for the year ending March 31, 1999.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the

granting of Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following

motion: that this House approves, in general, the budgetary policy of this

government.

That should not be a problem.

Petitions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and present a petition signed by between 11,000

and 12,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: People who are prepared to voice their position and

concern in support of the public service pensioners of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Public Service Pensioners Association have on

many occasions in the past - both publicly through the media and through a

variety of demonstrations in the lobby of this building - attempted to show and

indicate to this government exactly why changes have to made to support their

cause; to support the causes of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

who have through their careers, and through the civil service of this Province,

on behalf of a variety of governments, dedicated their lives, but yet regardless

of what is said this government simply does not get it.

The people of this Province - not members of the Public Service Pensioners

Association, not public pensioners in any way but ordinary Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians - some 11,000 to 12,000 of them, have signed petitions in support

of their fellow Newfoundlanders who are public service pensioners and who are

saying to this government: If you will not listen to members of the Public

Service Pensioners Association and public service members themselves, will you

at least listen to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are prepared to

go to bat on their behalf?

That is what this petition is all about. It is an important petition, because

all too often in response to petitions and claims being made by the Public

Service Pensioners Association itself the Minister of Finance, in particular,

will stand up and say: What about other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

members of the general public who in no way are associated with the public

service pension movement, how about them, the members of the public at large?

They have contributed; we have to protect them.

I say, Mr. Speaker, no more do we want to hear that defense because today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - as is shown, demonstrated and exemplified by the

signatures of between 11,000 and 12,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they

are on side with the public service pension movement, with the Public Service

Pensioners Association. They are asking that their -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - cry be heard and that, Mr. Speaker, their concerns be

addressed. I say to the minister it is not too late. He still has approximately

twenty-four hours to revise tomorrow's Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Hopefully, it will be addressed but if not, listen to

ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who make a claim on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in my district,

particularly in the area of Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove. The petition

reads as follows:

WHEREAS the deplorable unfit condition of the road to Harry's Harbour-Jackson's

Cove makes traveling to and from school unsafe for school children; and

WHEREAS the road conditions jeopardize the safety of the general public and

betrays a lack of commitment to the rural areas of our Province;

THEREFORE we the undersigned residents of Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove

in the District of Baie Verte do hereby petition the government to upgrade and

pave the road to Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove.

Mr. Speaker, this is not new. These are petitions that these people have been

sending me for some time. I presented more in the House last year and I am going

to continue to do the same as they ask for them. I will say that these people

did have a delegation travel to St. John's, a seven-hour drive to sit down

with the minister, and we did have a very good meeting. They made sure they

brought their point forward that, simply put, here in the year 2000, fifty years

after Confederation, we have gravel roads. Not the second lot of pavement, not

the first lot, none, zero, in a district where we still see a gravel road. It is

now at a state where even the grader operators who come down to grade the roads

are saying it is waste of time even to grade it because there is nothing left to

grade. There is nothing (inaudible) the road left there.

The hon. MP for the area, George Baker, was in the area not so long ago and

luckily for us and for the residents there he saw first hand what the road was

like. It happened to be a wet, rainy night and Mr. Baker - thank God it did not

happen - almost had an accident on that particular route. He saw first-hand,

when his car was up to its axles in mud and almost went off the road, what the

conditions are like in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is listening to the pleas of the people of

Harry's Harbour and Jacksons Cove. I think it is pretty straightforward, for

any member in this House, that anybody who has to be screaming and shouting this

day and age, in the year 2000, for their first bit of pavement after fifty years

of being a Province of Canada, there is something wrong.

These people are pleading again. I am proud that they continue their lobby

with petitions and meetings with myself, and I will continue to support them. I

do believe they should be a priority, in paving. I will repeat it again, a

priority, when you talk about gravel roads still in the Province.

They are worried about their children who have to travel some seventeen or

eighteen kilometers over gravel road to go to school, with school buses that

have no seat belts. We have all seen the fears of that lately, and we should do

something about it before it is too late, before we have a serious accident

there, and for people in general.

Also, they mention about tourism and economic development in their towns. We

are trying to provide some economic relief for that area soon; but these people,

I think, have a legitimate, serious, straightforward concern that in this day

and age, in this Province, that any government looking at this budget this year

should look and make sure that there is enough funding, not pittance, which it

has been for the last two or three years, to take care of a problem that is

brewing in this Province, that is going to come to a crisis situation very soon

if we do not start to put more funding into the provincial roads program for

this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, I would like to take

this opportunity to welcome to the public galleries today, Mr. John Reynolds, a

former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia and now the

Member of Parliament for that Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The prayer of the petition is relative to

the public service pensioners. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of this Province has historically protected its

pensioners against inflation by providing increases to pension benefits that

mirror those negotiated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public

and Private Employees - that is NAPE - for its members currently employed by the

government; and

WHEREAS the government of this Province arbitrary and unilaterally abandoned

this practice in 1989; and

WHEREAS the government of this Province has made no alternative provision

such as indexation to protect future pensioners from the ravages of inflation;

and

WHEREAS NAPE believes the Public Service Pension Plan is funded at a level

that would allow: (1) an increase immediately for current pensioners; and

(2) indexation for current and future pensioners with no increase in contributions

required; and

WHEREAS the government of this Province has a financial obligation to the

Public Service Pension Plan that it has not met;

THEREFORE, we the undersigned call upon the government to: (1) meet

immediately with the representatives of NAPE to negotatiate an immediate

increase for current pensioners; and (2) to agree to enter into negotiations

with NAPE regarding indexation of current and future pensions with no increases

in contributions.

Mr. Speaker, we in this House have been receiving petitions in the last

number of days. Approximately 100 petitioners have signed this particular

petition we are presenting now. We anticipate that there will be many more

petitioners that will send their petitions to this House to be heard by the

people's representatives.

Mr. Speaker, we want to remind the government that these petitioners have

themselves come to the House of Assembly. They have stood in the lobby of this

Legislature and they have said: Would you please listen to us?

About 900 of these retired public service pensioners receive less than $3,600

annually by way of pension benefits. That is less than $300 per month. Another

approximately 2,200 receive less than $400 per pay period. The average public

service pension is approximately $11,000. That is less than $1,000 per month.

There are about 14,000 former public servant employees out there, in retirement,

receiving their income through the Public Service Pension Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the hon. minister, he keeps interrupting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: He should be listening to what the people are saying, and

not trying to interject a lot of nonsense into this debate.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition, a petition with 2,000 names on it. I

think the prayer of the petition will be something that every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian can relate to. It is very simple and it is very brief. I had it

cleared with the Clerk, and he does not see any problem with it.

The prayer of the petition reads: Remove the HST from heat and lights.

We, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, believe that heat and light are

just as essential as food on the table. We hereby petition to have the HST

removed from residential electrical rates and home heating fuels.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been circulated in the Bonavista

Bay, Trinity Bay area. It is something that strikes every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian. In fact, I would guess that the Minister of Finance has probably

had more calls with the plea to: Step in Mr. Government, step in Mr. Minister,

and reduce the HST - which is something that the minister is capable of doing -

on home heating fuel and on gasoline.

Here is a situation in this Province today, that we are experiencing heating

fuel at double the cost that it was this time last year. Gasoline has gone

through the roof. I don't see how people on a fixed income, I don't see how

senior citizens or people on social services today in this Province, can reach

into their pocket and come up with an extra $100 or $200 in order to pay the

fuel bill.

What is happening, and I say to the minister and I say this to give a

warning, what you are seeing today - and I have witnessed it myself in rural

parts of Newfoundland - is that people are going out and putting in wood stoves

now. They are putting in wood stoves and they are putting in makeshift heating

appliances in order to provide some degree of comfort in their house. It is not

uncommon to go to a basement and see a wood stove and see a piece of funnel

going out through the basement wall, I say to the minister. You know what

happens when night time comes, when people go to bed. The wood stove is stacked

up, people go to bed, and I fear of what might happen if something does not

happen in order to reduce the taxes at least on heating fuel and gasoline taxes

in this Province, and electricity.

When she came in, the lady who presented the petition, talked about some

solutions. I asked her what she would suggest might be a solution for this,

because obviously it does not affect everybody to the same extent as it affects

those people on a much lower income. She talked about maybe applying a surtax if

they had to; apply a surtax where people who are receiving a higher income maybe

would not mind paying a few extra dollars. She was one of the people who was

probably in the $35,000 or $40,000 a year salary scale. Her comments to me were:

I don't mind paying a few extra dollars. I am a social worker, and I see the

hurt and I see the need out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today with

the increase in this fuel cost.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1. .

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor.

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

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

Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year

ending March 31, 2001. By way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the

provision of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the

House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

A. M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with a bill,

be referred to the Committee of Supply.

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: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The last day that the House sat, it being March 15, I introduced to the

House, Bill 2,

An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For

Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For the Financial Year Ending

March 31, 2001.

The issue, of course, of asking for Interim Supply in the House of Assembly

is nothing new. The purpose for it, of course, is well known to all of us who

have been in the Legislature in past sittings, and indeed who have been

following how governments traditionally operate over the many, many years of

British parliamentary tradition.

As the hon. members will know, the fiscal year of government ends March 31 st

and a new fiscal year begins April 1 st , the day after March 31 st

. In order for business to be able to be continued by government on behalf of

the people of the Province in the provision of public services that are ongoing,

and that sort of thing, in order to be able to meet payrolls, in order to be

able to disperse sums of money to pay our bills - I say our bills; I speak on

behalf of the people of the Province, because we are really trustees in their

name for the purpose of doing government on their behalf - we need to have the

ability to flow cash out of the new Budget that has not yet been presented in

the House.

The Budget, as you know, will come down tomorrow at 2:00 in the afternoon,

and it will provide the basis and outline the fiscal framework and enunciate the

fiscal policies of government for the coming year. Before we can actually spend

money out of that Budget, the Budget has to be passed in the House. That, of

course, will not happen between now and March 31. Therefore, the tradition of

Interim Supply - I say to the hon. Member of Cape St. Francis that if he is of

mind to speak to the members on the other side to expedite the passing of the

Budget, we would be prepared to engage him on that account. The fact of the

matter is that there are up to seventy-five hours allowed for budgetary debate,

and realistically the Budget will not be passed before the end of this month.

All of that to say that Interim Supply is a necessity. The bill was

introduced in the House four or five days ago, and I am asking the support of

the House of Assembly to ensure that we get Interim Supply passed in sufficient

time so as to be able to let the affairs of government to be continued

uninterrupted. That, of course, is the whole purpose of Interim Supply.

The bill outlines basically all of the expenditures for about a three month

period that will be covered in this Interim Supply bill. Hopefully, we will not

be here three months before the Budget is passed, but in order to have greater

certainty and to ensure that we do not have to come back and do Interim Supply

again, we traditionally, in the British parliamentary system, ask for about

three months Interim Supply.

Those are, I think, the only comments necessary on my account to lead off the

debate on Interim Supply. As I say, I am looking for the support of the Members

of the House on behalf of government, and I am sure that they will find it in

their hearts, and I am sure they will find it in their generous spirits, and I

am sure they will find it in the interest of the efficiency of both this House

and the execution of government, to, in a timely manner, see that the Interim

Supply bill is passed so that we can carry on with other business, principally

the Budget Debate, which will, of course, commence after the Budget is brought

down tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make those comments.

Having seen my hon. colleague over on the other side of the House rise to

want to speak in this, I am of two minds of whether or not to carry on, or

whether or not to sit down and listen to his eloquence. I am going to defer on

the side of caution and graciousness, and I am going to be seated and listen to

the eloquence of the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, my critic, a man whom

I have great respect for, and a man whom I am sure we will hear lots from once

we get into the Budget Debate in a more full-blown fashion.

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

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

I say to the Minister of Finance, praise will get you nowhere with me. The

bare facts will hold water with myself. As Chair of the Public Accounts

Committee, I take a careful look at the Budget, at what is being requested now.

We had the Auditor General's report come down today, and in due course, after

I am speaking here for an extra little while, I will have a close look at that

and bring that forward to the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the minister - oh, he is gone. Never mind, I cannot refer to

anybody who is not in the House. I will have to wait until he comes back. It is

just something in passing.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't you worry about it. It will happen. I am sure he

will be back in due course, I say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to say a few words on this Interim Supply bill, of

course. The minister is right with respect to the issue of the Interim Supply

bill coming before the House around this time each year, although it is a bit

later than normal, but it is a requirement, of course, that we get this through

this House before March 31 st . There are no guarantees on that, and

members on this side of the House have a lot to say with respect to this bill,

Interim Supply bill as it is referred to, and the way this government is wasting

their money. They are wasting their money, and I will get into that in due

course when the Budget is brought down tomorrow and in the following days to

that. I am planning on saying a few words on the Budget, too, Mr. Chairman. I am

sure it will be very interesting for members on that side of the House to listen

to.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to stay fifteen or twenty minutes on this

today. One of things I notice, of course, is that for the continuation of the

normal operations of the Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, we do need to pass

this Interim Supply bill; because people within the civil service and Crown

corporations and what have you will not get their pay cheques.

It is interesting to note, there have been questions asked of the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs - one today actually, and one some time. I had a

question: What does he do?

I noticed in this request today, in the Interim Supply bill, I say to the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, when I was going down through this list,

I did not see any money there for yourself or for your department.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say the minister is very economical, as he is

singing out across the House, or he does nothing, or it is going to be

disbanded. There is no Minister of Intergovernmental -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He just got the EI straightened out. Is that what he said?

It changed.

When the minister was on his feet today, talking about EI, and he was asked

questions from the Member for Bonavista South, he got up and he was roaring on

about all that he has accomplished in Ottawa this past weekend. No details. That

is typical for this Administration, and he is taking a good lesson from the

Premier: Get up and talk, talk, talk, talk and say nothing; but he would not

give us any details of what the changes are that he has accomplished. There were

no details. So maybe a further question to the minister. He may want to get up

and talk on the Interim Supply bill, and give us the details of how the changes

being made, or are going to be made, will benefit the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador with respect to the EI program.

MR. NOEL: It takes a little while (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It takes awhile for that to filter through. Well, I say to

the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that is true because we saw today the

Minister of Health up answering a question about the hostel for the Janeway

Hospital that was announced five years ago. It took five years to get a few

bucks for the hostel. Talking about being late on issues, they are always late.

One other thing that I find very interesting: The Premier was on his feet

today talking about a question with respect to the Hibernia project. He stated

to get on about the - how will I put it? - benefits that this Administration has

brought with respect to the Hibernia project.

The Premier should remember a few years ago, that only for the Tory

administration in Ottawa, and John Crosbie when he was there, that the Hibernia

- Jean Chrtien and a few more of them wanted to scrap the Hibernia project

when the oil company pulled out and they needed to find another shareholder. I

think Petro Canada went in at the time. Was it Petro Canada?

AN HON. MEMBER: For 8 per cent.

MR. J. BYRNE: For 8 per cent. Only for the Tory government in Ottawa and

the Tory government here years ago when Peckford was here, and the deals that

they cut, that this Administration - and we saw it today when the Minister of

Education was on her feet trying to take glory for something that they had

nothing to do with.

I am going to get into this now with respect to the Budget and this Interim

Supply, because the Budget is coming down tomorrow. We had the Minister of

Finance in the media talking about health care, and there is going to be money

in it for health care. Now, Mr. Chairman, what do we know about health care in

this Province? What do we know about the Premier of this Province and health

care?

As I said today when he was up answering a question - I made a comment with

respect to the issue that he is on to. Last night on CBC, they did a story about

the Premier and his political ambitions, his future political ambitions more so

than what he has - what he is saying is, he is trying to play it down with

respect to the Prime Minister's job of the country.

We know, and I said it last night when I was interviewed, what he is trying

to do now today, and in Ottawa in the past while, is get a national issue; and

health care is the one that he is planning on attaching himself to.

I have to question that, because I find it ironic. I find it a bit of a

contradiction that this Premier would be the one now who is going to try and put

himself out in front as Captain Canada on health care. Here was the Premier of

the Province today, a former minister in the Chrtien government for a number

of years, sitting around the table making decisions of cutting transfer payments

to this Province, something like $125 million a year cut, and now he is going to

be the hero; he is planning on being the hero. Not likely, Mr. Chairman.

After the federal budget came down, we saw the Minister of Finance in the

media saying what a great budget it was for Newfoundland and Labrador. A few

hours after, what do we see? The Premier of the Province saying: No, it is not

that good a deal because of the health care.

That was his first dose of reality with respect to health care in the

Province. He saw an opportunity, as he so often does, and he said: This is it. I

will grab onto that now and I will make political hay with health care in the

Province and across the country.

MR. SULLIVAN: Health care is in great shape, he said.

MR. J. BYRNE: He said health care was in great shape. The former Minister

of Health, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs - when the Member for

Ferryland, the critic for health, asked questions in this House, question after

question after question this past two or three years, she was always on the

defensive saying what a good job was being done in health care. How could it be

when they were cutting millions and millions of dollars?

MR. SULLIVAN: Fearmongering.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the word fearmongering was a favourite word from the

Minister of Health and the Premier of the Province, fearmongering. So what is he

doing now? Is he fearmongering with respect to health care across the country?

Is that what he is up to? Is that what he is saying, Mr. Chairman? It is only

his own words.

We saw, for health care in the Province to today - Loyola, health care - I

think we are getting something like $10 million? Ten million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Eleven million, I stand corrected. Eleven million dollars

for health care this year, $11 million next year, $11 million after that. That

is what is planned, $44 million. What do we have this Administration doing? The

same thing they have done over the past few years with respect to health care.

MR. SULLIVAN: The $44 million we were getting last year.

MR. J. BYRNE: The $44 million, they are taking it -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is this thing. They are taking $44 million now up

front to help with the Budget this year.

My concern, of course, with that is this: If he takes $44 million this year

and there is no money forthcoming in the following years from Martin, Chrtien,

and a few of the boys up along, where does that leave us?

The Minister of Health said - I think it was the Minister of Health - they

are taking a gamble on this; but I think, Mr. Chairman, they are gambling too

much.

Last year or the year before, the past few years now, they have taken

something like $50 million or $60 million out of the South Coast ferry, that was

supposed to be there for years and years, to be used over the many years to pay

for the South Coast ferry system. The interest from that would be utilized to

pay for the ferry system. They took $50 million or $60 million out of that up

front and a few years down the road we will not have that money to put into the

budget.

Then we had Term 29. They took another lump sum, tens of millions of dollars

out of that up front. It was supposed to be pro-rated over so many years. We

will not have that. We had this one now this year, the health care, $44 million.

What happens a few years down the road when the government comes looking for

Interim Supply to be approved, when there is no money there, when the cash

crunch comes?

My problem with all of this is that we have a Premier today who is the chief

financial officer, I suppose you could look at it that way, or the CEO of the

Province, who is at the helm and this is where they are steering the boat. They

are taking all of this money up front, and in a year or two down the road,

depending on how politics plays out in Ottawa - if John Chrtien decides to

stay, he may hang her down for a couple of years, and then we have the Premier

going after the federal leadership of the Liberal Party, and if Mr. Martin

decides to go on...

What we are seeing here is that - from my perspective anyway - the

present-day government in this Province, led by Mr. Tobin, is taking the

short-term view on these budgets. When the cash crunch comes a few years down

the road, will the Premier be here to face it?

After the next election we are not planning that he would be here anyway, but

in the short term, if we have three years before another election - actually we

could go four years - so, two years down the road, if he is out of here,

deciding to move on to Ottawa again, then where does that leave the people of

this Province? The people of this Province should not have to suffer for the

ambitions of the Premier of this Province.

Not to knock him from one perspective, Mr. Chairman, I would love to have a

Newfoundlander as Prime Minister of the country. I would love to see it, but we

have to look at reality. We have a Premier here now who is taking French

lessons.

I saw him last night on the television, on the special that was done on him,

twenty-five minutes. The girl asked him a question in French and he said: Not

today.

Therefore, I think - it might be a long shot, but my concern is that the

budget of this Province, the short-term view is being taken. They are taking

money up front from different areas, that will not be there in future years,

that was supposed to be there to help balance the budget. That is just one

issue, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is your time up?

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely, I say to Sir Gisborne of Bellevue. My time is

not up.

Here we had a Ministerial Statement from the Minister of Finance, Lloyd

Matthews, the minister's comments on meetings with Paul Martin. This is dated

March 21 st . What is today, I wonder?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: March 21 st .

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, most definitely. None at all. That was straightened up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the member, not a problem. I handled that. I got

my towns together on that; don't you worry about it.

Anyway, the minister said it was a good opportunity to sit and talk about his

important issues to Newfoundland and Labrador. We spoke about -

MR. EFFORD: His district has all the problems (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is your district that has the problem, Sir, not mine. I

handle my district alright.

We spoke about the need for additional health care funding, the disadvantage

of a per capita funding.

Listen to this: The Minister of Finance of this Province is talking about the

disadvantage of a per capita funding. It was my understanding - correct me if I

am wrong, I say, Mr. Chairman;

I stand here before thirty-one members on that side of the House, making a

statement - they are talking about a per capita funding being a disadvantage for

this Province. It used to be that the transfer of payments to the provinces was

on a needs basis formula.

This Premier sat around the Cabinet table with Jean Chrtien, who is the

Prime Minister, when they changed it to a per capita basis, and he agreed with

it. He, a federal minister, in agreement. He is now the Premier, and we have the

Minister of Finance now saying that is a disadvantage and they are trying to

change it. Why did he let it change in the first place? Why isn't he making

more noise when it comes to the federal budget and the implications it is having

on this Province? Because he has his ambitions.

The equalizations payments - I am going to get into a lot more detail on many

of these issues when the Budget comes down and we get to speak about the Budget.

I am looking, with anticipation, with respect to the Budget tomorrow. It is the

first budget by the new minister and, as I said before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, thank you.

The policies, again: We have this Administration - I have to talk about this

because every action that this Administration takes, or the actions they do not

take, really has an impact upon the finances of the people of this Province. It

has an impact upon how much money the people of this Province have in their

pocket. It has an impact upon how much money they can spend, how much money they

can spend on food in the Province, how much money is spent on heat and fuel -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will go another ten. Then I will sit down for the day.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: If the hon. gentlemen would promise me that the Member for

Waterford Valley will not get up, he can go on from now until the last day of

speaking. I can guarantee you right now, because if there is anybody who drives

me nuts in this House, that's it.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again, just to comment on that point of order - another one for the record.

Since I have been in this House of Assembly and he has been here, he may have

had two points of order correct, and I am sure he is hitting hundreds.

One of the points I want to talk about is this Administration and the impact

that their actions and non-actions have on the people of this Province. Now, we

can talk about the public service pensioners; we can talk about the price of gas

- and, as a matter of fact, I will.

The gas and oil, the home heating fuels in this Province; we had members on

this side of the House calling for inquiries, calling for all kinds of action to

be taken. The Minister of Finance gets up in the media and in the House of

Assembly and says: Cannot do anything about it.

Now we have the taxes on gas in this Province 52 per cent. We were basically,

again as usual, laughed at when we asked for inquiries into it. What do we see

the federal government do, only today or yesterday? They are talking about

putting an inquiry in place into the oil companies to see about the price of gas

and oil in this country. Of course Newfoundland, being on the far east of it,

are paying more than any other Province, as far as I understand, up to 83.9 for

self-serve regular gas in this Province today.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your solution? What do you think we should do?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, let me handle that when I get to my response to the

Budget, because I am curious to see what is coming down in the Budget.

I will address that, just slightly for you, so you can understand where I am

coming from on this. What this Administration does, and does very well, believe

it or not, is listen to our policies on this side of the House. Then you adopt

them yourselves. As a matter of fact, you will even ridicule them and then you

have the face, the gall, the guts, to go out and adopt them yourselves. I will

name a few for you.

During the last election, in our policy manuel - what do we have? One of the

policies was: We were going to reduce income tax. What happened? They went out

after the election - and during the election ridiculed us - can't be done, don't

have the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting to that.

They couldn't do it. Now in your budget - done - our policy.

I have been preaching in this House of Assembly about the payroll tax. I, as

a small businessman before I got into politics, understood the impact that the

payroll tax would have on small companies, the tax on job creation. What did we

have in our policy manual? That we would reduce it and over three or four years,

I think it was, we would cut out the payroll tax. What do we have now? We had

the Minister of Finance in the media yesterday talking about how the payroll tax

will be looked at. What is coming?

When it was first introduced it galled me, it boiled my blood, when

they(inaudible) the limit. If you had a payroll of over $300,000, you had to pay

tax on it. Can you imagine? What a sick, sick tax.

Then they made it worse. What did they do, I say to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs? They reduced it even more. So, if you had a small

company and you were paying out $100,000, then you would have to pay taxes on

that.

What this minister is going to do this year, I would assume, from what I am

hearing - sources tell me - he is going to increase that back up to $300,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I hope he cuts it out, but that is what they were

saying.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the payroll tax from $200,000 to $300,000?

MR. J. BYRNE: The payroll tax from $200,000 to $300,000, back to where

they first started.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) might go to