May 13, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 21

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to rule on the point of

privilege raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader on May 7.

First of all, the Chair would like to reiterate what has been said on

numerous occasions in this House, that a point of privilege should be raised

rarely. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne 27, that in order to be the

basis of a point of privilege the matter complained of must interfere with a

member in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties. In making his

point of privilege, the Opposition House Leader stated that he believed the hon.

the Member for Port de Grave had impugned the integrity of the Commission of

Members' Interest, an Officer of the House, as well as the integrity of the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

In reviewing the transcript the Chair could not find any imputation of

wrongdoing or lack of integrity on the part of the Commissioner. The Member for

Port de Grave stated that he was not able to find certain information. The fact

that he could not find the information does not reflect on the Commissioner.

There could be any number of reasons why the hon. member was not able to obtain

that information.

As for the statement made in a press release, the House does not take notice

of comments made outside and they cannot be the basis of a question of

privilege. I refer members to Beauchesne 31(3). In respect of his

comments about the Leader of the Opposition, the Chair is of the opinion that

nothing the Member for Port de Grave has said amounts to an impediment to any

member in carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. It is not a breach of

privilege or even unparliamentary to ask whether a member has fulfilled an

imposed statute or regulation. It is unparliamentary, however, to suggest

unworthy motives or to cast aspersions on a member.

The Chair is satisfied that in respect of his comments about the Leader of

the Opposition, the member has clarified his remarks by saying that he was not

suggesting the Opposition Leader was in conflict and that he had withdrawn his

unparliamentary comments "come clean", and I refer members to Hansard,

May 6, page 866. In the opinion of the Chair there is no prima facie case of

breach of privilege, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind all

hon. members of their obligation to couch their speeches in the House in

temperate language in the interest of good order and the proper flow of debate.

As well, on May 6, the hon. the Government House Leader rose on a point of

order concerning words he says he heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

say. The Chair took it under advisement. I have reviewed the transcript but I

find no unparliamentary language and therefore there is no point of order.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to pay tribute today to an outstanding Newfoundlander and Labradorian

who passed away at the early age of fifty-four on April 22 of this year. Wayne

Davis lived for many years in my own district, but originally hails from Pound

Cove, Bonavista Bay in the district of my college, the Member for Bonavista

North.

I had the privilege of knowing Wayne and of learning from him his great love

and admiration for his Newfoundland roots. As members in this House will know,

he was an aspiring politician in his quest to show his passion for this Province

and for the people who live here.

I would like to quote from a great friend of his, Des McGrath, who passed the

following comments, "Through Wayne's introductions, I have been honored

to touch the fabric of Newfoundland's seafaring history and tradition and at

varied times I shook the hands that tended the engines in the Kyle, rescued the

survivors of the Caribou sinking or skippered the (William) Carson .

Deck hands to Master Mariners were equally well met. In recent years, I

occasionally accompanied Wayne to funerals where he lamented the passing of

these characters' often saying

"the likes of whom we would not see again." Little did Wayne

realize that he was a true character in the making himself.

Captain Wayne Davis was instrumental for setting up the Coasters Heritage

Society where he continued to represent the interests of Newfoundland and

Labrador's heritage and history. He was a special individual, and he will be

missed.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members, I wish to extend condolences to his

mother, Lillian Davis; to his sisters: Frances, Linda, Sharron; and to his

brothers, Levi Jr., Bruce, Geoff and Dennis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate two exemplary

citizens of my district. I was honoured to help present the Queen's Golden

Jubilee Medal at Government House to these fine people with His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor, on March 21.

Mr. Speaker, Anthony Kelly, Sr. of Marystown is a tireless volunteer. A

former employee of both National Sea Products. He spent sixteen years as a

captain, and a former twenty-one year employee of the provincial Department of

Fisheries. Mr. Kelly has been involved with the Knights of Columbus in Marystown

since 1990 and was a founding member of the Father John Murray Assembly. He is

also involved with pastoral care for Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown, and is a

local organizer of the local Knights of Columbus Annual Student Speakoff

Program, along with helping fundraising for the Marystown Lions Golden Age

Seniors Club. He is also involved with the Marystown Heritage Museum.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Adele Pitman, better known as Mrs. Addie by all who know

her, is also a very tireless volunteer. She has volunteered with the Marystown

Library Board for forty-four years, thirty years with the hospital auxiliary,

and works with the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Red Cross, the Heart

and Stroke Foundation along with serving on the Board of Directors of the Blue

Crest Interfaith Home for Seniors in Grand Bank. She has also served on the

Marystown Hall Committee and also the Sacred Heart Parish Council and other

volunteer organizations just too numerous to mention.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I want to congratulate

Mr. Anthony Kelly, Sr. and Mrs. Addie Pittman on their volunteer efforts and

receiving this prestigious award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Sunday, May 4, I had the opportunity to attend the Annual Ceremonial

Review of the 2863 Dunne Memorial Cadet Corp, St. Mary's. On Wednesday, May 7,

I had the opportunity to attend the Annual Ceremonial Review of 2895 Enright

Cadet Corp at St. Catherine's Academy on Salmonier Line.

Mr. Speaker, during both visits I had the opportunity to witness the

top-notch performances of almost 100 young people. Their commitment to

excellence, their devotion to being the best is a clear example of the guidance

and support they receive from their leaders, their parents and the entire school

community of St. Mary's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the cadet movement is alive and well in this Province and

certainly the examples are seen in many communities. It gives the opportunity

for young people to hone their skills, to travel, to work with each other and

gain friendships that will last a lifetime. Many awards were presented to

deserving students and individuals, and it was a pleasure to witness the healthy

competition that the cadet movement brings to all parts of our Province.

I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating

members of 2895 and 2893, and indeed, the entire cadet corp of Newfoundland and

Labrador on another great year and a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, May 12-18 is National Mining Week throughout

Canada.

I would like to recognize the contribution made by the mining industry to the

economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. This year, approximately 2,700 people will

be directly employed in the Province's mining industry, primarily as a result

of increased activity at Voisey's Bay. The total value of mineral shipments is

forecast to increase from $792 million last year, to $826 million in 2003.

Over a dozen mineral commodities including gold, iron ore and gypsum are

produced by our miners. Industrial minerals, such as dimension stone, slate and

limestone are also creating new opportunities. Labrador West continues to

produce approximately 55 per cent of Canada's iron ore products.

The Voisey's Bay development will create thousands of jobs and enormous

benefits for decades to come. This year, 500 to 600 people are expected to gain

employment on the project with over $100 million being spent in our Province.

The Province's geology is attracting significant exploration interest.

About 120 mineral exploration companies are active here and it is estimated that

20,000 claims will be staked this year. Current estimates indicate that $25

million will be spent on exploration. Exploration is being conducted in several

regions including the area from Gander Bay to St. Alban's and from Badger to

Gander, including the Botwood Basin, and in the area of the Golden Promise gold

discovery. Areas which were staked in 2002 are now subject to a resurgence in

gold exploration. These include White Bay, and the Baie Verte and Springdale

Peninsulas which have great potential for future gold discoveries. As well,

there is base metal exploration in the Smallwood Reservoir in Labrador, the

Bonavista Peninsula, and Red Indian Lake.

The Department of Mines and Energy continues to actively encourage and

support the mineral industry with informative resource data, mine engineering

assistance and incentive programs. We continue to work with industry to

strengthen opportunities in our mineral sector. Through our resource management

activities, we ensure that our mineral resources are developed and managed in a

sustainable manner.

Mr. Speaker, mining is an industry providing tremendous current benefits and

great promise for our people. We appreciate the efforts of those involved, and

assure them of our continuing assistance.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for his timely delivery of his statement

today, and giving me a chance to read it beforehand.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we recognize, too, the

importance of the mining industry in this Province. Myself, being from a mining

town and a mining region, I also recognize the potential there is for mining in

this Province.

Also, Mr. Speaker, throughout the statement, of course, everybody talks about

Voisey's Bay, and that was the most current discussion we have had in this

House, but certainly there are more to look forward to. I would say to the

minister, we do look forward to the creation of thousands of jobs with Voisey's

Bay and to see if it is indeed for decades to come, so that the people of this

Province see the benefits from Voisey's Bay. We will be watching for that, I

say to the minister.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we would like to mention today, exploration. Anybody who

has anything to do with mining in this Province realizes the importance of

exploration. Because of the high risk involved with mining, it is important and

critical that we certainly do provide incentives so that people will go out and

actually explore.

I know from the region I am in, back in the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, when we saw

the Flow-Through Shares program through the federal government, in the mid-1980s

there was increased exploration throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As a

matter of fact, I say to the minister, because of that particular period of time

when the Flow-Through Shares were in this Province and exploration increased,

the only current mine at Nugget Pond was discovered at that particular time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude by saying that we look

forward to increased exploration until we see further developments in this

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the mining

industry in our Province. Indeed, the communities that I represent are based

solely on the mining industry. The minister refers, in his statement, that 55

per cent of the iron ore pellets produced in Canada are from Labrador West and

the other 45 per cent, I say to the minister, are produced next door in Mount

Wright and Fermont where the activities there lend greatly to the economic

well-being of Labrador as well.

Mr. Speaker, on the Voisey's Bay development, I sincerely hope that the

adjacency principle will be applied; that it will, in fact, work the way the

people in Labrador want it to work. I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker,

that while we proclaim Mining Week -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I would like to point out, just by comments, Mr. Speaker,

that while we acclaim Mining Week, I have to point out to the government and

draw their attention to the fact that with the great development at Voisey's

Bay and with all the good things that can happen, the regimes that are in place

for that development will still see this Province over the twenty-five year life

of that project only receive $411 million while Ottawa, on the other hand,

receives $4.9 billion. If we are going to take full advantage, Mr. Speaker, we

have to have better policies in place than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last Thursday, in this House, Mr. Speaker, the Premier introduced a

resolution regarding joint management of the fishery and seeking constitutional

amendment. Mr. Speaker, it is my prediction that tomorrow this House, all

forty-eight members, will unanimously support such a resolution. From our own

point of view, we have long sought, as a party, the exact same proposal and the

exact same solution to a greater degree of control over our natural resources,

which will lead, obviously, to a more self-reliant and self-determining society.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, in an interview on Sunday with CTV's

question period - I have a copy of it here - the Premier said that he would

first talk with federal officials before reopening the constitutional Pandora's

box.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier this question: Could he explain

what he meant by saying he would first talk to federal officials before

reopening Pandora's box? What did the Premier have in mind when he uttered

those comments to the press on Ottawa over the weekend?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the information of the Opposition House Leader, I wasn't in Ottawa over

the weekend, I was here all weekend dealing with these issues. Mr. Speaker, I

can tell you what I didn't say was what the Leader of the Opposition said,

which was suggesting that they did support the resolution and will support it

tomorrow, but in the meantime suggesting that the timing was wrong, that maybe

there should be an administrative arrangement instead, maybe something that

Premier Doer had conjectured about when asked about it, that might be the right

answer instead of it.

What I have said is this: We want to do exactly what the resolution calls

for, and I invite the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, to read the resolution.

It says: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly ask us to begin

a negotiation of the Terms of Union to see if we can arrive at a position

whereby joint management can be given to Newfoundland and Labrador and

constitutionally enshrined. It lays out steps, Mr. Speaker, the first of which

is to begin a negotiation with respect to our Terms of Union with Canada.

What I was responding to, Mr. Speaker, as everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador knows, is that the federal government representatives have already

jumped to the end conclusion to say: Well, it might be difficult to change the

Constitution, so we don't intend to speak to you at all. All I was reminding

people, Mr. Speaker, is that our resolution that we will debate fully tomorrow

says: Authorize this House, authorize the government, to begin a negotiation.

Our objects are to change the Terms of Union and have it constitutionally

enshrined.

You can't deal with any of that if you have a federal government that says:

We do not want to talk to you. Do not come to Ottawa. The circumstance is, the

next thing you know representatives on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador will not only be dismissed in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, will have to get

permission to go there in the first place. So, I am just trying to make it clear

that we have laid out a process in the resolution. We hope to get all members to

support it tomorrow and then we will go down the road of the negotiations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - on Terms of Union hopefully leading to a constitutional

enshrinement of joint management.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the Premier taking the opportunity to clear up what was in the

Ottawa press because the

article led to a suggestion, I suppose, that there were

other options other than a constitutional amendment.

Let me ask the Premier this question. Over the past thirty years, and indeed,

over the past fifty, there have been many models suggested about what joint

management would be, what joint management could be, and what it would involve.

Let me ask him this question: What menu of options is the Premier considering in

terms of a model for joint management? Does it involve - what a former Premier,

and which he was part of the Cabinet of - turning over licensing issues to this

joint management board constitutionally enshrined? Does it mean turning over all

issues related to, whether it be fisheries loans and others in the Province, to

a joint management board and the federal government doing the same? What models

is the Premier suggesting or menu of options does he consider or have considered

to present to the federal government and to other provinces in the country?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would ask the Opposition House Leader and everyone in the Province,

be patient. This is the longer-term goal, Mr. Speaker. Our efforts today are

really focused on something that they do not seem to want to talk about anymore,

which is getting the EI extension immediately for people who are out there not

fishing today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see they are very sensitive about this. They have about five or six

different positions on the issue because they do not know where they stand on

this matter like they don't with most others.

Mr. Speaker, the real focus for us is the immediate concerns that our

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was in Ottawa dealing with again

yesterday, and that I have been dealing with Minister Byrne and others with

respect to the circumstance right now, this year, and a decision that is still

in place that is the wrong decision and needs to be reversed.

What we are looking at is a longer-term solution, that we all recognize, that

serious process of changing the Terms of Union, you do not accomplish that

overnight. It takes a lot of work, a lot of detailed effort and we will lay out

for the people of the Province every single one of them, exactly what it is we

will propose. But what we have to get over first, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit

of a hurdle - I describe it that way to be kind to our friends in Ottawa -

whereby as soon we mention we would like to come forward -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - with the approval of this Legislature and have a

negotiation, they say: Don't come to Ottawa, I do not want to talk about it;

and the Prime Minister saying: I am certainly not going to talk about it because

I am leaving in nine months. I do not care how important it is to Newfoundland

and Labrador. So, we are hardly in a position yet, Mr. Speaker, to be talking

here about what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - it is we are going to propose. We have to shake loose

the people in Ottawa so that they will respect us and speak to us in the first

instance, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, the Premier stood up

yesterday, and he does again today, and shouts out: We are not interested in the

immediate short-term solution of EI extensive; when the very question the hon.

Member for Bonavista South asked yesterday, it was the Premier who said: You are

asking the wrong House. You cannot have it both ways, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What people want to know from you and we all have a right

to know, each and everyone of us in the Province and in this Legislature, is

that obviously there was some thought and some strategy that had gone into the

process of asking and seeking a constitutional amendment, enshrining forever the

notion that we could have joint say over the fisheries management in the

Province, which we support.

People want to know, what options have you and your government considered? Is

it similar to what former Premier Wells, and you as a member of that Cabinet -

the Premier was a member of that Cabinet - suggested at the time or is it

something different? Will it look like - or what is the Premier suggesting -

will it look something like the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, or

are there other options on the menu when the Premier discusses with federal

officials of what he and his government are proposing to be constitutionally

enshrined? That is the question that people want answered. We all understand,

Mr. Speaker, that it is the long-term objective, everyone supports that

objective. What we want to know now is how the Premier plans to get there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the approval, in advance, for tomorrow's resolution. I accept

that and very much appreciate the full support for the notion that we start a

negotiation. For clarification, yesterday I did mention that when somebody in

the Opposition benches asks our Minister of Human Resources and Employment when

will the EI extension be approved, he is asking in the wrong Legislature. It is

not our decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: That can only be answered by a minister in the Parliament

of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and we want to get the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So let's not misrepresent what I say in this House. I

know they try hard, but they usually fail.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would suggest again that it is not the

burning issue and question on the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

today as to what model of joint management we might be going to seek from the

We have an immediate problem with respect to the fishery and an announcement

that we have to get changed and proper compensation put in place. That is on

people's minds today, and they understand that there is a lot of time and lots

of time to have a full debate about what model, if we get over the first hurdle.

We have to get over the first hurdle, which is significant, which is a

government in Ottawa in the nation's capital that says, even if we passed the

resolution tomorrow, they do not intend to speak to anybody from Newfoundland

and Labrador about changing our Terms of Union this week, within the next nine

months. That is what they have said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: So we want the full support and need it, Mr. Speaker, to

get them to come to their senses so we can start the negotiation, and we will

gladly lay out what it is we are going to try to accomplish if we can get them

to talk to us in the first instance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two burning issues in this Province today and they are

both related. The immediate short-term solution is immediate help for people

impacted by the decision. The day after that decision was made, our leader

talked about it, and that Premier condemned him. The burning issue associated

with that is how we are being treated by the federal government. To separate

them is wrong and unjustified, and the people of the Province know the

difference. What the people of the Province want to know is, how serious this

Premier is. They want to know how serious this government is, in launching a

strategy of trying to get more say over provincial matters, and the questions

that we are asking today is asking that very question, Mr. Speaker. How serious

is this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask this question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs: What are his department and officials within his

department doing? What did they do leading up to the announcement and the

resolution provided by the Premier? Are they preparing draft papers for their

provincial counterparts? Has the minister talked to his other counterparts in

other provinces who are responsible for interprovincial relations? If so, what

are they saying? When did he talk to them, and will they support the resolution

and the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition House Leader can raise his voice if he likes; it is not going

to impress anybody, I am sure. One of the oldest tactics in the book is, if you

don't have an argument just speak louder. If you don't have any point to

make, just raise your voice.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this. He talked about me condemning

the Leader of the Opposition the day after the announcement, and so he should

have been condemned. One full week after the announcement was made, the Leader

of the Opposition admitted, on an evening newscast, that he had not called for

the reversal of the decision; that the day after he did say: The decision is

final and I would like to work on the compensation.

Now they do not like to hear that, but those are the facts. Those words came

out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, not me. Now there are back on

side now and we are glad to have the support. They have seen the light again.

They have seen the will of the people, that they want this done.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you for a fact, the problem is not how serious we

are; the problem is how serious they are. When the Leader of the Opposition goes

on the national media and says to a national audience - the Opposition party,

through their leader - don't mind the government down here. The timing is all

wrong. They are only doing it for an election and they are not really serious.

That is what he said to a national audience. That is how much support he is

giving to these issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. We

are dead serious. We will have the debate tomorrow for the longer term. Today,

we are still focusing on trying to get a right and proper and just decision made

for the short term this year, because these things are for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, two weeks after the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North, the Fisheries critic, announced that the immediate

concern of people who were impacted was licence buyout, early retirement and

extension of the UI, two weeks after that, the Minister of Fisheries,

provincially, followed suite. So if we want to talk about the record then let's

make it clear.

Back to the seriousness of the issue. Mr. Speaker, if we, as a Province or as

a people, hope, and we all hope and plan to have a greater say, a constitutional

enshrinement of a greater say in the management of the fishery, then people need

to know and people have a right to know in terms of the government's strategy

and how we get there.

I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs this question:

What sort of relationships have you built? What relationships are you building?

How have you briefed your counterparts? What have they said?

For example, Mr. Speaker, are the majority of premiers you have contacted in

support of Newfoundland's legitimate and rightful quest for a greater say in

the management of resources, and can you expect seven premiers plus 51 per cent

of the population to support our legitimate claim?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just two points in response. One is that we have full respect for the House

of Assembly. We do not presume that the debate has already taken place tomorrow

and the vote has been held. So, Mr. Speaker, what we do is, we have made

contacts with other jurisdictions. We have given them information with respect

to the notice that we have given. We have given notice that a debate will occur

in the Province. We cannot presume. Glad to have the assumption today and the

encouragement from the Opposition House Leader that they will vote for it

tomorrow, but our steps would be that after it is voted on in the House we will

provide them all the details. After. We have given them notice that there is a

resolution. They have gotten copies of that. We will give them the notice.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, too, that we do have - because a

former Premier of the Province surfaced again today in a letter to the editor,

being very supportive for Newfoundland and Labrador, very supportive of the

Province of which he used to be the leader, raising the same issues, usually

done so at the urging of the Leader of the Opposition. He usually calls him and

asks him to write a letter to the editor.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this, the government does have all the papers,

all the background and all the arguments that Premier Peckford had twenty-three

years ago, when he now writes to the local paper and says: I had the support of

all of the provinces.

The information that he used to secure the support of all of the provinces

then -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - he was so proud to say, we have that. That happens to

be government information. That is not personal information to somebody. We have

that and when the motion is passed tomorrow - I will be that presumptuous - we

will gladly present the cases to everybody in Canada, build the support and

enhance our chances for success, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Premier has talked about, certainly since last Thursday, that he has had

discussions with a number of his counterparts, other premiers across the

country. The questions that we are asking today are very simple, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier, in view of the fact that the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs will not answer - and he is under no requirement to; it is up to the

government who answers the question, and I understand that - but in view of the

fact that the Premier has said himself, publicly, that he has discussions with

other premiers, will he take the opportunity to inform this House, and through

this House the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, what type of support, what

type of encouragement, and what type, I guess, at the end of the process - what

is his sense of where the other premiers are in supporting our legitimate and

our bona fide claim to joint management of the fisheries, enshrined

constitutionally? What has been the response from other premiers across the

country, who he admits himself that he has talked to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, had been following any of the

reported media, he would understand that on a general principle basis, because

we have not provided them the details yet because there has been no vote in this

Legislature yet, that in fact he would understand that the Premier of Ontario

has indicated that they have some understanding and great sympathy for what

Newfoundland and Labrador is trying to accomplish. The Intergovernmental Affairs

Minister for Quebec has said the same thing. The Premier of Alberta has said the

same thing. The Premier of Nova Scotia has said the same thing. They said that

while they may not be fully willing to change the Constitution at this point,

they certainly have grievances with the government in Ottawa. The believe the

relationship should change and they believe in the fundamental principle that

those closest to the resource should have a real say in its management.

So, Mr. Speaker, it has been very encouraging words from across the country

to date. Even on a very preliminary basis, without the work that we will do and

the same kind of work that was done successful, I am glad to report, by former

Premier Peckford - because all that work that he did is available to the

government and he succeeded to have every single province in Canada support the

notion of jurisdiction for those people who are actually closest to and own the

resource. I am sure that every member opposite would hope that we end up with

the same result at the end of a process that we are going to begin after we

respect this Legislature enough to at least have the debate and wait for the

affirmative vote that I understand will occur tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, yesterday, was in

Ottawa on meetings related to the closure of the Northern and Gulf cod

fisheries. Many in the fishing industry, and the general public, are eager to

find out if there is any progress being made on the reopening of the fishery, on

compensation issues, such as an extension of EI for those affected adversely by

adverse ice conditions, and on licence and early retirement programs.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us a full update on those meetings, whom

she has met with and has any progress been made on these very important issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, actually I am just returning from my meetings in Ottawa and I would like

to say to the member opposite that there was a broad range of aspects of this

cod fishery closure that I have discussed with Minister Thibault and also some

discussions with Minister Byrne. We were able to, certainly, put some options to

the federal minister. Our position is that we want to see this fishery open. We

want to see people on the water this year. Mr. Speaker, we have opened a

dialogue with the federal minister to try and facilitate that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in her answer just then, indicated that she had

opened a dialogue with the minister. I have a copy of the ministerial statement

that I had expected her to read here today, just delivered, just before the

House opened. It said: "Mr. Speaker, I have also opened dialogue with Gerry

Byrne, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on economic

development initiatives."

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: What has happened in the last three weeks?

Three weeks ago we suggested that there needed to be a dialogue on economic

development initiatives. We suggested three weeks ago in a press conference -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - when the minister and the Premier all maligned and mocked

us for suggesting that we needed an economic development agreement to help those

affected by the closure of this fishery.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened? The question to the minister is this: Has

there been a full-court press for the last three weeks by this government with

the federal government on these issues? Or, Mr. Speaker, is it as the minister

just said, that they finally opened a dialogue yesterday on these important

issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member has been in the

same Province that I have been in for the last three weeks, but I can honestly

tell him this: There has been full-court press, there has been continuous

representation by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: What the hon. member seems to have forgotten, Mr. Speaker, is

this: That the federal government closed the fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador with no offers of adjustment measures for the people of the Province,

and the full-court press has been trying to get this fishery open and get fair

and adequate compensation for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where the full-court press has been. The

full-court press has been by the Premier running around this Province

politicizing, not in Ottawa where it should have been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks in

communities like Green Island Brook -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member get to his question, please.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, over the course of the last three weeks in communities like

Green Island Brook on the Northern Peninsula, a community of 180 people,

sixty-five people have made up their minds that in the next two weeks they are

going to leave, Mr. Speaker. That is what is happening in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: What

proposals have she put forward to the federal government? What proposals have

they put forward for economic development initiatives? What proposals have they

put forward on early retirement? Have they asked the federal government to fund

an early retirement program that will enable people to retire with a combination

of their years' work and their age? Something like that is supported by the

industry. Those are the questions I would like to have answered today, not

rhetoric from this government on what they are going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, no one understands more fully what the impact of

this fishery closure is on the people and the communities in this Province than

this minister does. I will say that to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We fully realize the tremendous suffering and sacrifice that

people are going through out there in those communities today. That is why we

have put everything on hold. I have, as a minister, to deal with this issue

entirely, giving it my full attention, Mr. Speaker, every single day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I would say to the hon. member across, because he criticizes

the fact that you would support people in your Province. Well, I want to say to

the hon. member, this is a government that believes in representing people; this

is a government that believes in pushing fully their issues at a time when it

needs to be pushed; and this is a government that believes in standing with its

people and supporting them at a critical time in their history, and we intend to

do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health, or the minister responsible for

Labrador, and it concerns the cost of accessing health care within Labrador.

I want to know why residents of Labrador West have been discriminated against

for years. The hospital in Goose Bay is the regional hospital, and it is quite

common for people who live in all areas of Labrador to be referred there for

services not available in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, people who live in Labrador West over the years have paid

airfares ranging from $400 to over $800 to go to Goose Bay for medical reasons.

Will the minister explain to the people of Labrador West why they pay those

rates for air travel while every other resident of Labrador, in every community,

can fly to Goose Bay for medical reasons for $40 return? Will the minister also

confirm that residents of Goose Bay can fly to St. Anthony for medical reasons

at a cost of $40 dollars return, while people in Labrador West have to pay

almost $700?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the question. It is a very serious question that he

has raised. Certainly, I don't have the answer for you today, but I can assure

you my deputy minister is on the way to Labrador City for meetings, working on

some issues that we promised the people in Lab West we would deal with. I will

personally call him and ask him to speak to Mayor Jim Farrell who I do believe

is the Chair of the Labrador Health Board, to advise him of the situation, have

a discussion with him and get back to me. I will then take it to my colleague,

the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the minister may appreciate the question, I certainly don't

appreciate that answer.

Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for years. This has been kept from the

people in Labrador West, the rates that other people in Labrador pay. It has

been kept, intentionally, I would suggest, from them.

When will the minister, and will the minister, confirm that the people in

Labrador West will, in the future, have the same medical rates available to them

as everybody else in Labrador, and will he go even further and reimburse the

people who have paid these higher rates, the extra costs that they incurred as a

result?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Member for Labrador West that during the April

break, myself and the Premier traveled to Labrador West. We talked with

different groups. We certainly had discussions on some issues that they felt

were affecting the area of Labrador West. We are now working on these files.

They talked of the difficulty in getting people out to a funeral. Certainly the

issue of health care was not mentioned to us during that time. Certainly, it is

new to me and you can rest assured that my deputy will talk with the Chair of

the Labrador Health Board and certainly he will get back to me. I will then sit

down and discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time this session I stand to table an annual

report which pertains to the operation of the Department of Government Services

and Lands, a report concerning the operation of the Board of Commissioners of

the Public Utilities from the period, April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003. It has

been completed as required by

section 56, subsection (1) of the Automobile

Insurance Act.

I am extremely pleased to be part of a government which has made openness and

accountability a fundamental pillar of our day-to-day operations. The past two

years has been a period in which this Province has seen a greater commitment to

accountability than has ever been experienced here before. The naming of the

Citizens' Representative, new financial reporting mechanisms, new Freedom of

Information legislation and tabling of annual reports are just a few of the

initiatives we have adopted over the past two years. We will continue this

process because we feel that the people of the Province have the right to be

aware of the operations of the government and its elected representatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the 2002 annual report

of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. This annual report

highlights the activities of the Commission through 2002 and further reflects a

continued commitment to assist injured workers, employers, labour, government

and health care workers throughout the workers' compensation system in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act No. 2." (Bill 16)

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to a Ministerial

Statement that he had received from the Minister of Fisheries. I wonder if the

House would revert back to Ministerial Statements and allow the minister to give

her statement? She has just gotten off the airplane -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Okay, alright.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister Responsible for Fisheries and Aquaculture, I want to provide the

House with an overview of discussions with the federal government yesterday

concerning the closure of 2J3KL and 3Pn4RS cod fisheries and its impact on the

economy of this Province.

I met with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Robert Thibault, to

discuss the closure of the cod fishery and to outline adjustment measures

required to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians affected by this

decision.

Mr. Speaker, I emphasized that we want to see the cod fishery reopened. We do

not agree with the decision to close the fishery and we are asking for more

analysis particularly on the Gulf cod stock.

I proposed that the federal minister review the commercial log books of the

fishers that were omitted from the recent scientific analysis of the Gulf cod

stock. In addition, we want DFO to complete an early review of the sentinel

fishery results for this year and we want this review completed by the end of

June. This will ensure due consideration to information from our fishers who

feel the stocks are healthier than science has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, I also discussed with Minister Thibault the requirement to

reduce capacity in the industry and the importance of ensuring that adequate

early retirement and voluntary buy back of licence options be included. The

minister has indicated that he will look at these components.

Mr. Speaker, I have also met with Minister Gerry Byrne, Minister of the

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on economic development initiatives. The

Province has requested the federal government immediately address the short-term

needs of individuals and identify long-term economic programs to assist in the

survival of our rural communities.

Discussions with both ministers included the Shrimp Management Plan,

particularly in light of the effects of the closure of the cod fishery and crab

quota reductions on harvesters and processors.

Mr. Speaker, we are also very aware of the immediate impact of ice

conditions, and the closure of the cod fishery on harvesters and processors.

Employment Insurance benefits need to be extended and we have requested that

both Minister Thibault and Minister Byrne deal with this issue as quickly as

possible. An Employment Insurance bridging program is needed to support these

individuals, some of whom have been without an income since April.

Mr. Speaker, the impacts of the closure of the cod fishery are immediate and

we need this decision reversed. Ottawa has mismanaged the fishery for over fifty

years and the people of this Province are now feeling the brunt of this

mismanagement. I am hopeful that the discussions held yesterday will lead to

successful resolutions to these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits and White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we, on this side of the House, have no problem

supporting everything that the minister said in her statement. We do call on

Ottawa again to reconsider their decision to close the fishery in the Gulf and

on the Northeast Coast. We believe there certainly needs to be a fishery at some

level, whether it is 3,500 tons or 7,000 tons, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in

particular, because without it many communities cannot make it.

In the short term, Mr. Speaker, on the economic development, on EI, on early

retirement, on licence retirement, there is an urgent need to get progress

reported on these initiatives. As I said in Question Period, there are 180

people in Green Island Brook, of which sixty-five people are planning to leave

within the next two weeks; nine leaving today. You know, one-third of that

community is going to disappear over the next two weeks. Our communities - there

are many Green Island Brooks around the Northeast Coast, the Northwest Coast,

the Southwest Coast and Souther Labrador, so I would suggest to the minister

that, while she says in her Ministerial Statement that she has opened the

dialogue with Mr. Byrne yesterday, I say that it is very, very unfortunate. I do

not know where the blame lies, whether the blame lies on that side of the House

or in Ottawa, but it does not matter now where the blame lies. It is time for

people to get to the table, discuss these issues and get a resolution in the

short term and long term for the people who are affected by the closure, or a

reduced quota in these areas.

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.

Clearly there is an urgent need to reverse the decision of the federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and also to ensure that we have the

protection, the extension of EI, the new programs for people, anybody whose

fishing will be reduced, and whose income will be reduced by any level of

closure.

What I find interesting about the statement of the minister is her last

sentence. She says, "I am hopeful the discussions held yesterday will lead

to successful resolutions to these issues." We did not really hear why the

minister is hopeful. If she said she was hoping it would, I would understand it,

but why is the minister hopeful? What reason does she have to be hopeful? Has it

been indicated by Minister Thibault that there will be, in fact, a change in

this? What reason can she bring to this House as to why she is hopeful that

there will be a successful resolution to these issues?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

We will now go back to our Routine Proceedings.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

district. The prayer of the petition reads as follows, Mr. Speaker:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following

prayer:

We the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Centre area hereby draw your

attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route

90 St. Mary's Bay;

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of

the Highways Safety Act to protects its citizens not only from commuters but

also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority

of any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding

to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of several petitions I have presented here in the

House on behalf of people who travel and live on Route 90 in St. Mary's Bay.

Certainly, after being in the area several times over the past couple of weeks

to attend different functions such as the annual review of the cadet corps of

Dunne Memorial on Sunday, May 4, there is no doubt about it that the road is in

desperate need of repairs and maintenance and recapping.

The concerns that have been raised with me and with the minister through

letters to the minister, Mr. Speaker, have to do with a safety issue. Not to

sound repetitive, but I think it is important that we continue to deliver the

message to the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation on behalf of the

people of St. Mary's Bay that the condition of the road certainly has made for

some unsafe and unsatisfactory road conditions.

I guess that is the purpose of the petition coming before us today in the

House. It is one of several I have been asked to present here, to put the

message forward that this road has been for many, many years now without needed

repairs and maintenance that it requires to bring it up to a safe standard and a

standard where people who are travelling on buses, in ambulances or in their own

regular vehicles, Mr. Speaker, have the opportunity to drive over a safe road.

Many parts of this road now are full of major holes in the pavement and

people have to steer away, Mr. Speaker. In talking to a bus driver in the area

on the weekend, he tells me that it is unsafe when you are travelling with a bus

load of seventy-two schoolchildren and you have to be swerving away from holes

in the road. It certainly creates, or has the potential to create, some very

unsafe conditions.

It is not only this part of my district, Mr. Speaker, that is in need of work

and road repair. It is throughout the district, Mr. Speaker, up through St. Mary's

Bay just outside the Town of North Harbour, between North Harbour and Colinet -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment to finish up, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly there are conditions throughout the Cape Shore area and the road

down to the community of Point Lance in over the Cape Shore area, in through the

Town of Placentia and down the Fox Harbour access road, Mr. Speaker.

We are waiting for the minister to make the decisions in regard to the road

work this year. Through raising these petitions in the House and certainly from

the people in this situation here - Route 90, St. Mary's Bay - we hope that

the minister will take into consideration the issues that I have raised here on

behalf of those people, and certainly the safety concern that the people have

raised as the number one priority that they have. Hopefully the minister will

take into consideration the issues and will find some necessary funding to

address the concerns these people have raised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present the third installment of a petition dealing with the

MRI facility which is being proposed. I will simply read the prayer of the

petition.

Whereupon the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland and Labrador

resolve that Magnetic Resonance Imaging equipment must be purchased by the

provincial government and established at Western Memorial Regional Hospital in

Corner Brook to serve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third installment of a petition which was gathered

in the Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland region over a period of ten days. The

petitions keep coming in from the outlying areas and different parts of the

Province, the Northern Peninsula, and with the 280 names on the petition here

today, Mr. Speaker, that brings now to 21,516 names added to a petition calling

for a fixed MRI in the City of Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back very briefly. As you may recall, on April

30, a group of doctors convened here in the City of St. John's. Some

twenty-one actually, twenty-one doctors, technologists and board

representatives, met to provide government with some information as to where

best to locate this particular facility. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the group

were not able to arrive at a consensus and they were not able to provide a

recommendation for government to follow. However, there was a very strong

consensus from the group and they did make a recommendation in the following

terms: that they would support, and the Province should support and commit to a

provincial plan for MRI services within the Province for three to five

additional units over the next three to five years. That was the recommendation

that came from the doctors and from the technologists.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health and Community Services already

indicated, that committee will be reconvened, as a matter of fact, two weeks

from the date that it dispersed on April 30, so on or about the middle of May

that group will reconvene to receive government's response to their

recommendation and then to provide, clearly, a definition that the Province

should follow.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to claim that no decision

has been made as to whether it is going to be a mobile or a fixed MRI. No

decision has been made, contrary to a number of rumors circulating in the Corner

Brook area and which are found currently, today, in The Western Star , the

local newspaper.

What has been decided very clearly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member' time is up.

MR. MERCER: Just a second to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: What has been decided very clearly, Mr. Speaker, is that the

group of twenty-one health care professionals will reconvene on or about the

middle of May to consider government's response to their recommendations, and

at that time we look forward to a consensus coming forward with a recommendation

as to whether it should be mobile or fixed. We hope that decision, from the

perspective of the 21,500 signatures, that this will be a fixed unit located in

the City of Corner Brook.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from

Grand Bank and Fortune, and they deal with the topic of providing a co-payment

drug plan for people of the Province. I will read the prayer of the petition,

Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new MS drug therapies;

and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides

medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy

Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 and $3,600 a month; and

WHEREAS all other citizens in the Canadian provinces can receive assistance

with these high cost MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs that

are not limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people

with MS and other diseases;

We, the undersigned, petitioned the House of Assembly to direct the

government to implement a co-payment or a sliding scale program for these drugs

so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing programs can

get financial assistance with these drugs, as is the case in every other

Canadian province.

Mr. Speaker, I have risen many time in this House and addressed this issue.

Unfortunately, government has still not seen fit to implement a plan that will

improve the quality of life for people in the Province who suffer from MS and

the other diseases that I referred to, and they have not seen fit to give to

people of the Province any financial relief in this area. It is unfortunate that

this government would allow and force hardworking people of this Province down

to a financial burden where they have to exhaust all of their financial means in

order to purchase a drug that is necessary to treat the disease that they are

affected by. I think it is unfortunate, and it does not speak very well of this

government to be the only jurisdiction in this country that does not have a

co-payment plan in place. Hardworking people of this Province should not have to

reduce themselves to income-support levels before this government will step in.

Mr. Speaker, I think this government would also be wise to recognize that

these drugs can enhance the quality of life for these patients, leading to a

better quality of life for them for a longer period of time. It is time this

government faced the reality that without these drugs government is going to pay

in the long run anyway because many of these people will be institutionalized at

a very early age. So, government is going to be on the hook financially one way

or the other. Isn't it better, I say to them, that they come up with the

co-payment plan which will allow people to have a better quality of life and

spend their money in that area to help people rather than be forced to at the

end?

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when people of this Province have to choose, have to

make a conscious choice between their family's well-being or purchase -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: It is unfortunate that people of this Province have to make

a conscious decision to purchase a drug they need to treat their disease, or to

have the ability to provide financially for their family. It is a position that

people should not find themselves in, in this day and age, and it does not say

much for this government when we are able to point out to them that, in fact,

the only province in the country which inflicts this financial hardship upon

their citizens is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before calling this specific order, I move that

the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you going to get up on Orders of the Day now?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair is waiting so he can put the motion.

It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. and at 10:00

p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, today.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, I move that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of Supply to debate the Estimates of Consolidated Fund Services,

Legislature and Executive Council.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): Order, please!

Committee of Supply - Estimates - Consolidated Fund Services, Legislature and

Executive Council.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I have some questions on the Office of Executive Council. I understand the

minister or somebody will provide some specific answers to these questions based

on the Estimates. Of course, Executive Council is one of the areas that is not

done outside the House in Estimates, it is done within the House. I have some

specific questions here on this particular one.

My first question - I will give the minister a second if she needs to tune

into it. In

section 2.2.02., that is Economic and Social Policy Analysis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: On page 15 in the Estimates book. It says: Economic and

Social Policy Analysis. Appropriates provide for planning support for the

Economic and Social Policy Committees of Cabinet through analysis and advice on

future directions in economic and social policy matters and rural revitalization

issues.

Now the salaries listed here in this shows $426,900 in salaries. If you look

in the Departmental Salary Details -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What

section are you on?

MR. SULLIVAN:

Section 2.2.02.01 Salaries, page 15 in the Estimates book.

The heading is Economic and Social Policy Analysis.

I am wondering, why would there be $426,900 in Salaries? That is an increase

of about $80,000 from last year. When we look on page 5 in the Salary Details

booklet we will find an amount that is significantly less there. I think it

shows just $249,896. Why would that be significantly less under that area there,

if the minister could tell us? The Salary Details, I know, lists the permanent

employees. Would we have almost $200,000 or $180,000 of temporary employees over

and above the $249,000 that are listed in Salary Details as permanent there? Why

the large difference? Secondly, why is there $80,000 more budgeted this year in

Salaries under that area than was expended last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The rationale for the decrease in the number was because we had a number of

positions vacant for the year. So, with those positions being filled in the

coming year, plus with the normal salary increases, that would account for the

increase from $406,000 to $426,000 this year.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are five permanent salaries listed in the Details book. Could the

minister tell us how many salaries are included in that $426,900? How many are

permanent now, and how much money? I think it is difficult always to tell the

number of temporary because they may be on for an extended period or so on, but

at least how many are permanent and what is the dollar value that is allocated

to temporary staff under this particular item here in the Budget?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The allocation is for five permanent positions. Temporary assistance, which

again I think is, as you pointed out, very difficult to determine, and also some

overtime, that is what those amounts allocated are, based on five permanent

positions.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Would the minister be able to give me the amount that is estimated in

overtime versus temporary? The permanent ones are about $250,000; that leaves

about $176,000, roughly, or $177,000 between temporary and overtime. What is the

breakdown on that between temporary and overtime?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

The bulk of it is for the five permanent positions, one of which was not

filled this year, as I pointed out, so that is why there is a differentiation

between the current budget and the revised budget. I can get you the breakdown

of the permanent positions and the difference between the two of those.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The question I asked there was not necessarily on the revised. On the Salary

Details booklet on page 10 it shows basically there is about $250,000 in the

five permanent salaries. That is under Economic and Social Policy Analysis,

there are five positions in this area. Now, if there are five positions that are

permanent for about $250,000, we have this year budgeted $427,000 rounded off.

That is $177,000 extra. I am allowing the five positions in that $250,000 I am

wondering, with the $177,000 difference, how many might be temporary, how many

might be overtime?

My rationale for asking that is, if significant overtime costs are fairly

high, maybe the number of positions - if we are paying out more in overtime than

we would pay in a position and what those costs are, it would be interesting to

know for comparison. Because most other salaries within Executive Council, when

you look at them, there is not a big discrepancy between the total number of

permanent salary wise and temporary. Temporary is only a smaller part of it. The

temporary here in overtime is $177,000 over $426,000. That is 40 per cent more

than the salary budget. That is not normally the case in these other items, in

other headings here, subheadings, throughout the budget. That is why I am

particularly interested. Why is it such a higher percentage above it in this

case? I think a breakdown of that $177,000 would be able to give me that answer.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I already answered in the previous question that I would be happy to

identify the number. I have the actual amount as $170,000 for the temporary

employees. There is no overtime allocation at all. As to the number of

employees, if that is four or six, because they are probably hired at different

times during the year for different projects, I have already said that I would

be happy to provide that for him.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I look forward to getting that proposed breakdown. I would be interested in

knowing, too, historically, last year the revised 2002-2003, out of the $342,600

how much of that was overtime, for example, and how much in temporary employees?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: There was no overtime at all in this budget. That is

what I just said. I just answered the question. There is no overtime this year,

only temporary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not ask that question, I say to the minister.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, you did.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Hansard will show what I asked. I asked, in 2002-2003,

which is not this budget -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible). You want last year's Estimates.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not think the minister is following. What I indicated

first, I asked for this year and you said there is none. Then I said, to give me

some insight, if we look at 2002-2003, could the minister give me, out of that

figure of $342,600 last year, how much of that was for permanent employees, how

much was overtime, and how much was temporary on that. That is already done and

recorded. We do not need to speculate on that. That is now a part of the record,

so that number should be provided.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it is. Generally, we deal with the budget year at

hand when you ask questions. I have answers to the questions for this fiscal

year, but I do not have all of the retrospective numbers for all the previous

years. As I have said to you, there is no overtime that was paid out in this

year. It is for temporary employees, but I will endeavor to get you the

information with the breakdown on the number of temporary employees that figure

refers to. I would be happy to do that for you and I will present it to the

House.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am not asking for all the other years. When you present a budget, this

Estimates book was presented and in this it shows the budget for 2003-2004 and

it shows the revised figures for 2002-2003. In this House in the past, in the

Estimates Committees on which I sat, I have asked questions comparing your last

revised one to see why it is higher. That has been traditional. That has always

been done. We have compared last year to this year because we have a comparative

figure to look at.

The minister should have, and be able to answer, where the $342,600 - and it

should be provided, I am not asking for the year before, or three years ago. The

one that she filed and tabled as a part of this Budget here, that has figures on

it. I just wanted to get an answer as to the ratio there between permanents,

temporaries and overtime for last year, the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003. If

the minister could provide that, please?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I already answered it. I said I would provide the

information I have.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister indicated that she does not have figures for

all the previous years. I am not asking for that. I just said -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You just said all that, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: And I will say it again, I say to the minister. I will say

it again because the minister - first of all, she is not following parliamentary

procedure, but I will not get hung up on that point.

The minister should have, and other ministers had it in their estimates, and

I have been at estimates in the past where they were available. The book that

was tabled by you as part of the Budget Speech list figures here, and I expect

the minister to be able to tell us on last year what they spent in each area. It

is listed. It is part of the document you put before this House and before the

public. I should be able to find out under Salaries item, under Economic and

Social Policy Analysis, how much of the money is recorded and spent, and over

and done with, of the $342,600 is permanent, how much was paid for temporary,

and how much was paid for overtime?

If you cannot tell that, what is the point of running through this process?

It is futile if you cannot justify a figure that is here and cannot give it on

some that has past. I am not asking you to predict. The most recent statistics

available, that is what we compare in budgeting from one year to the next and

look at historic trends here. If the minister - I would ask her again if she can

provide that? I would certainly like to have it because in the past we have been

provided with this information when we have asked it, historically, on these

particular items.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I already said to the member opposite I would be happy to provide the

information. I will give you all the information that I have, but honestly, I do

not think anybody out there would expect that you can give the individual

breakdown and the calculations for this year and last year. I said I would

certainly get it for you. I have no difficulty getting it for you. I will answer

every question to the best of my ability but, in all fairness, I have never -

other than the numbers that were in the book for this year and last year. If you

want more of a detailed breakdown, I am only too happy to go to the officials

and ask them to provide it. Not a problem. No need to do a speech on it, Madam

Chair, only too happy to do it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do not see why the secrecy is automatically happening. My colleagues in

estimates to other ministers this year - and we have asked in the House in the

past. If the minister cannot stand and tell us that we spent $342,600 in

salaries and cannot tell us if they were permanent, temporary or overtime - I am

amazed. That is a right that we have. That is what this process here is all

about in this House, Madam Chairperson, and we should have that information.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I do not know what the member is getting on

about. I said I would only be too happy to give him the information. He is up

talking about secrecy. I do not know what it is, if it is a carryover from last

night's soliloquy or what, but I am only too happy to give any information.

Now, I can tell you that of this year, of the $426,000 that was spent, five

positions are permanent, temporary assistants relates to $170,700, and there is

$6,304 for permanent and other adjustments related to salaries.

Now, if he wants the exact number of people for this year and last year, I am

only too happy to provide it, but I do not have with me, today, the record of

every temporary employee that worked this year and last year. I am only too

happy to provide it in the spirit of transparency and openness. I don't know

where he is coming from talking about secrecy. I never mentioned the word. I am

saying I am only too happy to give the information. It is just that I have to go

back and get last year's information in that kind of detail. I can give him

all the detail I have here with me.

The member also knows that in every other estimate, with the exception of

this, there are all of the other officials who do nothing all year long but deal

with these issues. In the House of Assembly you give the information you have. I

don't run these departments like deputy ministers, I am the minister. I give

all the information I have. I will give my best judgement and answer, then I

will go to my department and get the details that are further required, which I

have conferred here in the House that I will do. Not a problem.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

This debate in this House, in estimates, is about detail. That is what the

nature of estimates is, detail. This should be the same exercise as we do in

estimates outside the House. In other jurisdictions, on times, they are debating

- in fact, I read in the newspaper when I was in Nova Scotia that they were

appalled that when we were talking about expenditures in the Premier's office

and elsewhere the Premier wasn't there. They made a big issue of that.

I expect a minister representing a government department, or Executive

Council, to be able to stand here and tell me if they spent $300,000 or $400,000

or $700,000. They should be able to stand and tell me how much of that $700,000

went for permanent staff, how much went for temporary and how much went for

overtime. Not giving this information, and not being prepared here, is not the

way it has happened in the past, I can tell you, because I have been around here

for a long time. I have been finance critic for over two years. I was finance

critic for two years before that. I asked these questions in the House back in

1996 and 1997 and 1998. We have asked these questions here and we not getting

answers. They are not forthcoming. I expect to get them from the minister. I am

surprised the minister cannot stand and give them now, because other ministers,

in estimates, do provide that detail. We cannot get information. The most open

and transparent government and we cannot get it.

I would like to ask the question: Under this Economic and Social Policy

Analysis, $13,000 was spent last year for travel and communications. They are

looking at spending $40,000 this year. Why is there over a 300 per cent increase

in your travel budget, communications, in this particular area this year

compared to last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The member opposite knows there is not a 300 per cent increase. There was a

budget last year, there was less spent, and, in fact, this year the same amount

that was budgeted is put there again this year. We have the same debate and

answer the same questions every time it comes up. What we have seen is that you

give people an allocation for transportation, if it is not used it goes back

into the general revenue. It shows that you have confidence in the people who

are working for you and with you. If they don't need the travel, if it is not

required, then it is not spent. If it is, they have the ability to do it because

they have the work and the business of the people of the Province to do. We

trust our employees. We give them an actual budget allocation and people can see

from this that is wasn't spent. So it goes back into the general revenue and

therefore they make a presentation towards an allocation they feel would be

appropriate for this year. If it is spent, then they justify how it is spent. If

it isn't, it goes into general revenue.

So, I say to the member opposite, it shows that our employees of the Cabinet

Secretariat, who had a budget last year of $40,000, who only spent $13,000

because that is what they required, have now the $40,000 re-budgeted. If they do

not need it, it will not be spent, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member of Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

That is precisely the nature of my question. I am glad the minister has

finally said it. In other words, my question was: Why basically are you

budgeting $40,000 when you have only used $13,000 in the past? Why do you budget

it? If $13,000 was enough last year, maybe wouldn't $20,000 be a bit

conservative just to allow some extra? Why go three times the amount that you

used last year?

It has nothing to do with the confidence in people working in government. The

minister tries to point it back on employees. It has nothing to do with it

whatsoever. It has nothing to do with employees. It has a lot to do with the

minister not being forthright and answering questions here. If you only spent

$13,000, what do you expect to spend $27,000 more on this year than last year?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I do not have any difficulty answering any

question, but I take offence when the member opposite says I am not being

forthright. What he is looking at are the printed budget numbers for the people

of this Province. Everything is there in black and white. The number that was

allocated last year, the number that was spent, and the number that is budgeted.

Now he may not like the number that is budgeted. Maybe he has no confidence in

the Cabinet Secretariat and he would like to eliminate their budget. That is

something that, at this point in time, he has no control over, except to give

his view.

Our view, I again say that this is there for all the people of the Province.

To say that I am not being forthright is really not a very honourable position

to take because it is there in black and white. Now if the member has to stoop

to that level to asked questions in the Estimates on Cabinet Secretariat, go

there. I do not intend to participate in that kind of debate. It is below you,

quite frankly.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I think the minister has just stooped to that level in the debate. I have a

lot more confidence in the Cabinet Secretariat than I have in you, Minister,

because you have not been answering any of these questions here today. I am sure

we would get the answer from them.

I must say, when we were in Budget lock-up they were very forthright. They

were very straightforward. They were very good. In fact, I compliment them on

their forthrightness and openness there in providing information. I have said

it. I found the people very co-operative. Far, far more co-operative than I have

found this minister.

Under Protocol, 2.2.05, why, if you only spent $15,000 on travel in Protocol

last year, are you budgeting $180,000 this year? Why is there twelve times as

much money budgeted for travel? I know a year ago, the year before, the Premier's

travel used to be buried under Protocol and then farmed out to all other

departments. I understand the practice has been reversed now and there is a

reflection in the Premier's travel for a 50 per cent increase in Premier's

travel budgeted this year from $250,000 to $375,000. Protocol, of course,

relates to, "Appropriations provide for official, diplomatic and royal

visits as well as protocol related official functions and duties of the

Premier."

What might necessitate a jump from $15,000 for travel last year to $180,000

this year? What special things are earmarked? I am sure, under Protocol, some

events can be fairly expensive. We might be hosting certain things - royalty and

certain diplomatic and certain other aspects that are needed there. Maybe they

are earmarked there. I would like to ask the minister to just give us an idea of

what special things would call for a 1,200 per cent increase in travel under

this particular budget.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am glad to hear the member make the comments about our staff and compliment

them in Cabinet Secretariat, because I do concur. I would also say to the member

opposite: He might not like the answers, but he is getting answers to his

questions.

He is misrepresenting the numbers here, because everybody can see from the

Budget Estimates that last year there was $180,000 allocated in this particular

budget item and there is $180,000 allocated this year. The rationale for that is

because it is the Protocol Office. Last year was an unusual year. There were

very few visits and travel. I don't know, quite frankly, this year, because of

SARS and other types of potential and threat, there might be decreased travel. I

do not know. In this particular budget item you budget for things like the New

England Governors' Conference, any diplomatic visits, state funerals, major

provincial events, and it is budgeted. Again, it is not something that you

always know is going to happen.

I want to assure the people of the Province, because there is something being

portrayed here, in my view, that is less than accurate and I want to portray it.

The member opposite is making a point that we have blown the budgets out of

proportion, and he knows the difference. The point is, the budget allocated

there, if it is not spent - and I want to assure the people of the Province, any

money not spent - goes back into the general revenue of the Province. To make

the assumption, because it was not spent last year, that it is blown out of

proportion is really speaking to the member opposite and his whole tactic.

Madam Chair, what we have shown here is the amount that is budgeted, the

amount that was spent, and because not all of the money was spent, it goes back

into the general revenue. Each of these various departments make a pitch for and

a plan for what they feel is required to deliver the services of the various

branch they run. In this case, it is Protocol. They have put in an offer. I want

to assure the people that, if the money is not spent, it will go back into the

general revenue of the Province.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The point I am making is, if you need $180,000 and you could list out events

anticipated this year, there is a reason for it. If you go back the year before,

they only spent $50,000 and budgeted $250,000. Now they have dropped it to

$180,000 and only spent $15,000. I am asking: Why are you budgeting $165,000

more than you spent? The year before you budgeted $200,000 more than you spent.

Why are you putting inflated numbers in a budget if there is no need for it? Let's

give a more realistic budget there. Let's give a true budget. Let's not give

us a false budget and give the impression here on these numbers. Historically,

when you only used $15,000 or $50,000, why did you budget $250,000 the year

before last? Why did you budget $180,000?

If the minister could stand and say, we have a Royal visit coming to this

Province and we are going to need $75,000 or $100,00 for that - have you

earmarked anything for that extra $165,000, twelves times as much money for

travel for the Premier and others that may be protocol related events over this

year, when the Premier himself has been given a 50 per cent increase in his

budget for travel besides this item? So that is $375,000 from $250,000 for the

Premier alone, and protocol on top of this, another twelve times that.

To me, if the minister could stand and identify areas there, I would accept

it, but she has not given me one single answer on what I have asked yet, not a

specific answer, other than we will get the answer; we will get that. What other

reason would you leave if you are not providing answers there? I do not like the

answers because I am not getting an answer. I am not getting the figure I have

asked. If I get an answer on the figure, then I will decide whether I like it or

not. I certainly do not like the information that is given because the minister

is trying to hide something here and give an impression here, doing something

that has not been done before. This minister has been incompetent in her duties

by not providing this information to us here in this House.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I think the Member for Ferryland has

stooped to a new low. Just because he does not get the answers he wants does not

mean he has the right to call people incompetent. I mean, you need to look in

the mirror from time to time, I say to the Member for Ferryland, and I offered

him a mirror last night when he was doing his soliloquy.

I say again, just because you do not get the answer you want, I say this to

the Member for Ferryland, does not mean there are no answers. I say, again, that

these numbers are printed for the people of the Province. He asked the question

what it was for. He has tried to infer that we have a travel budget stashed all

over the place for the Premier. All the travel for the Premier is recorded under

the Premier's travel. I have already pointed out that this office is an office

that provides for the Order of Canada, New England Governors, state visits, and

diplomatic visits. We do not always know on April 1 who is coming to the

Province. But, I can assure the people of the Province, without any doubt, that

any money which is not spent for protocol initiatives will go back to the people

of the Province through the general revenue. Not another penny will be spent,

only that which is required. That is clear from this year's Budget. Only what

was absolutely necessary was spent and everything else was returned to the

general revenue. So, just because the member is not getting the answers he

wants, gives him no right to call me incompetent. Maybe he should look at

himself in the mirror if he wants to get to that level.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Well, the minister here is not providing accurate information, not providing

any information. Did the minister indicate - I thought I heard her say in her

previous response that the Protocol account is used for the Premier's travel

with New England Governors in meetings. That does not come out of the Premier's

travel. It comes out of Protocol. Would the minister confirm that? That is what

she stated there just a few minutes ago. Would that be accurate?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

All of the Premier's travel is recorded under the Premier's travel

allocation.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Why did the minister say in her previous statement that in this Protocol and

other costs, you said New England Governors in meetings there? Where would this

fit in? How much money might have been budgeted for the meeting with New England

Governors and Atlantic Premiers, because the minister made that statement there?

So, you are saying money is coming out of Protocol for those meetings. That is

basically the statement she said, and Hansard should bear that out.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I was just giving an example and I have

already identified. It is planning for the upcoming events, such as: New England

Governors, the Eastern Canadian Premiers Conference, any diplomatic visits, the

Order of Canada, all these various functions. As they become available they are

all made public. People know what they are. The people involved, obviously, have

to have a budget to do that kind of work.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

How much in this amount of $180,000 is budgeted for the Atlantic Premiers and

New England Governors meetings or any travel related? Could the minister give me

the projected amount for this particular there?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will provide the member opposite all of the events that were spent. Of the

$15,000 that was spent last year, I can certainly provide that. I cannot provide

the cost of what will be spent this year because it has not occurred yet, but I

would be happy to provide the breakdown for the $15,000 that was spent in

hosting, preparing and doing all the protocol initiatives that were provided

this year.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said she will provide again. She does not have

it there. I am sure there is a budget. When you budget for something you have -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

I have to say this again. If the member opposite, and the people of the

Province, really think that I am going to come to this House and have the

details of every social event and protocol event, I think in all fairness, when

the member stands up and says she does not know - I have said, and quite

frankly, there is a fair bit of work in running two departments and other

associated departments. I make no apology that I do not know every social and

protocol event that is related to the protocol office for the whole Province of

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will give every undertaking that I

will give a full breakdown of the full $15,000 that was spent last year for

protocol initiatives for the people of this Province. I have no problem with it,

but I take great offence to the member standing up and saying I do not know

which events were hosted, how many donuts they bought, how many cups of coffee

they drank. I really think the people of the Province deserve better questions

and then I would be only happy to give better answers.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Since she is in a cooperative mood now, could she also provide to me in

2.1.01, when she is going to provide the breakdown, under Transportation and

Communication, also the breakdown on the $250,000 for last year under that item?

If she does not have it with her, could she please provide it? That is the

Premier's travel for last year, the $250,000. She could do a breakdown -

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think if the member wants it The Telegram usually does a full

Freedom of Information request on all the Premier's travel and it has been

published. I would be happy to give it to you in this House if you have not read

it in the paper already, but they have already asked for that. They do it at

least every six months, if not annually. That information is there for the whole

Province to see at any time.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am quite familiar with that. We spent a full day in Public Accounts on that

particular topic, I say to the minister, basically trying to track down where

the Premier's expenses were hidden, in what departments. That was the nature

of our Public Accounts Committee on that particular topic.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have no difficulty answering any questions but I have

difficulty with insinuations.

All of the Premier's travel has been recorded. When it was brought to our

attention by the former Auditor General about Premier's travel being dispersed

in various departments, when this new Premier came into office and it was made

known to him it was changed mid-year. The member opposite knows. It was

reflected last year, even though the Auditor General never made any mention of

it in her last report.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would not expect Elizabeth Marshall to do that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, you would not expect it.

Those changes were made, so I think you need to be clear. The member opposite

knows the difference but he tries to plant insinuations. He knows the difference

on some of these things.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I just find it quite unusual that she is prepared to provide the $15,000

under protocol, under travel, but she was not prepared to provide a member of

the Legislature here with the $250,000 under Premier's travel. She is prepared

to do it in one area, but not in another. So she is being selective in what

information she wants to provide here to this House.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member is so frustrated over there that he is not

listening to the answer. I said I would be happy to provide the information.

However, it is probably a waste of our own bureaucrats time to ask again because

The Telegram has asked for it at least twice this year, and it has been

published. If you do not believe them - if you want your own copy we can get it

for you but please do not put words in my mouth, I say to the Member for

Ferryland. I at no point said I was being selective and I at no point said I

would not provide it. Maybe you need to settle down and listen instead of making

your own views on what I am saying here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I must say it is not the member here who is getting a little unsettled, it is

the minister who has not yet today provided one figure on the revised figures in

this Budget. That is the purpose, Madam Chairperson. The purpose of estimates -

MR. REID: You don't listen, boy, give it up (inaudible) if you don't

understand what estimates are.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Minister of

Education, is not in his seat and is shouting and interfering with the process

here. I ask that he be restrained, Madam Chair, from interfering.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Traditionally, each year since I came to this House, and

that is eleven years ago, that there are estimate committees established whereby

- committees established by this House can go into estimates committees and ask

the ministers questions on expenditures and would have their staff available to

provide them. It is has been tradition in this House that Executive Council,

Premier's expenditures, Legislature, Consolidated Revenue Fund, and so on,

would be done here in this House and those figures would traditionally be

provided to us.

I have asked for breakdowns on each and so far all I have gotten: we will get

it for you. We have not been given one figure. The minister has not come

prepared with even a general breakdown under those headings here in the Budget.

That, to me, is not doing the required job or being open enough to give us

information basically on those estimates. It is not the way it has been done

historically. If I asked, can you tell me - for example, I said the $360,000.

She cannot even tell us how much was spent on permanent, temporary and overtime.

They cannot even give that general figure.

I do not want to know further breakdowns on numbers and things, just general

headings to give me some idea if the department is spending 40 per cent more in

temporary and overtime than it is on its salaries; another 40 per cent when

other areas are only spending 10 per cent more. Maybe it is time to put another

permanent position in there if we are spending more on overtime than we are in

(inaudible). These are the types of things that we need to know - whether the

proper management is occurring and the proper utilization of human resources are

here in government departments. If we do not get the answers there, how can you

make reasonable suggestions and so on, on these particular areas?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that I want to thank my officials for the information on

last year's, not this year's book, but on last year's book which the

member opposite wants to question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, it was last year's book.

With all due respect to the Member for Ferryland, I have all the answers to

the questions for this year's budget, but he wanted to go back to last year's

numbers. I did ask, and I just want to provide this for the member opposite and

for the people of the Province, because I know they are on the edges of their

seats on this one. The actual number for this year, as I said, was for five

permanent positions, and I said there was $170,000 for temporary. For last year,

which is what he asked, there was $179,900 spent on permanent and $162,700 on

permanent. That is the difference between last year and this year.

MR. SULLIVAN: You said permanent twice. Which is permanent and which is

temporary?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The permanent is the higher amount of $179,900 and for

the temporary, $162,700 - I am happy to repeat it for the Member for Ferryland -

for a total of $342,600, with no overtime in there.

MR. REID: Ask and you shall be enlightened.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Ask and you shall receive.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The minister says she has all the figures on this year. I want to ask her

again - $180,000 for Protocol, and $15,000 was spent last year - what is the

breakdown for $180,000 for this year, if you have all the figures? Tell us on

what you project spending twelve times as much as last year. The only figure you

have, Minister, is $180,000, and you have no idea where it is going to be spent

because the budget is twelve times as large in this item as it was last year.

Give us the breakdown, or the areas of predicted expenditure, to a reasonable

guesstimate at least.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will explain it again to the member, because I know there are a lot of

heads to go through and it gets confusing for him. I will explain it to him.

The Protocol Office, this vote, is put in place in the event that there are

special events planned for the people of the Province. Sometimes, as we all

know, we have the Duke come, we have the Queen, or whoever, and we have

dignitaries from the United States or from other parts of the country, and we

put that budget in place.

Now, the member wants me to give a list of who is coming to the Province. I

cannot do that, because when the Budget was prepared on April 1, we did not have

the list. However, what we do know is, last year we had $180,000 and we did not

spend it. I do not know what will happen this year, Madam Chair, with the event

of SARS and people more reticent to travel. I do not know how many people will

be coming to the Province, but I can assure the people of the Province that if

the money is not spent, it will go back into the general revenue just as it has

this year, just as it has last year.

It is important for that office to be able to plan events, important events,

if they are required. What I will say again is, if the money is not spent,

without hesitation, it will go back into the general revenue for the people of

the Province.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

That minister is not coming clean on these figures. For example, the minister

is trying to tell us now that the Queen or the Duke might visit the Province,

with this short notice, this fiscal year. I think that Royal visits are planned

well in advance. I do not think Royal visits are planned months and months

ahead. I think they are more into years.

The minister does not have one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The bottom line, Madam Chairperson, is that the minister

does not have one particular idea of how the $180,000 she is proposing in that

budget this year - when she only spent $15,000 last year. I want to look back

historically.

Two years ago, they budgeted $250,000 in Protocol and spent $50,000. Then

they started dropping it to $180,000 and they spent $15,000. Now they have it up

to $180,000 again. The last couple of years they never spent more than $50,000

and now it plugs in at $180,000. That, to me, is cushion. It is fat that it is

put in a budget to meet future needs they may have of a political nature, the

same as an extra 50 per cent, $125,000 extra, in Premier's travel, and it is

in particular areas here.

If the minister stood and said, there is a planned visit here that is going

to cost something, then I could understand, but she has not been able to give me

one specific breakdown on last year's figures. She has not been able to give

one specific area and target amount on this year's figures.

The minister might not know it, but when a Budget is tabled in this House, it

is not only a Budget that is tabled for the upcoming year, it is a table of the

revised figures for the year just ended so that we can have a comparison. That

is the nature and that has been done ever since I came into this House. The

minister does not know that, and she is not prepared for it. She should check

with previous Finance Ministers who came prepared to answer these type of

questions in the House before.

Basically, it has not been happening here. We are just getting stonewalled on

these particular things here and I see it futile, the process here of Estimates

and to get answers on questions. It is futile. There are blocks put up here by a

government that professes to be the most open and transparent government. It is

frustrating, I might add, Madam Chairperson, that they are hiding and shielding

and will not give us the information here when they profess to be otherwise.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I have to say here that I think it is

absolutely ridiculous and insulting to listen to that kind of verbiage that we

just had to listen to about no answers. Just because the member does not get an

answer to the question that he likes, just because he cannot accept the fact

that we did not spend money so we put it back in general revenue, just because

he cannot accept the fact that people come and make a budget plan. Like, for

example, this year we did not budget for what happened in Badger. We could not

have budgeted for what happened in Badger. We did not know that, but you do the

best you can with the information you have.

Do you know something, Madam Chair? When you do not spend all the money, the

money goes back into the general revenue. When you do need it, it is spent and

it is accounted for. Just because there is an amount allocated does not mean

there is going to be that same amount spent, and the member opposite knows that.

Now, I understand he is frustrated. He looks frustrated, he sounds

frustrated, and it is because he is not getting what he wants, but I can say to

the member opposite that these accounts are totally in order. They are there for

the whole people of the Province, for everyone to see. Like I have said time and

time again, just because he does not get the answer to the question he wants

does not mean the answer is not there. It does not mean that the people in

Cabinet Secretariat are not doing their work.

I can honestly say that any answer to any question, I am only too happy to

provide it, and I have. There hasn't been one question asked here today that

has not been answered with respect to these questions, even though he does not

like them. Then again he does not like anything we say so what would you expect?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I have a few questions for the minister on Consolidated Revenue

Fund and the Executive Council, which we are here today to try to get some

answers out of the minister.

In the Estimates meetings here in the House of Assembly this past few weeks,

I happened to be the Vice-Chair of the Committee which asks questions to the

Minister of Finance some time ago with respect to the Department of Finance. We

were here for a couple of hours, I believe, trying to get answers, and hopefully

we will get some more here today.

I would like to ask the minister, under the Executive Support on the Office

of the Executive Council, 2.3.02.03 under Transportation and Communications,

there was $91,000 budgeted last year, you spent $91,000 and $91,000 is budgeted

for this year. When you look at the Estimates, Madam Chair, in previous years

and in this booklet itself, you oftentimes see variations. It is unusual to see

the exact amount of money spent. I wonder, could the minister give us a

breakdown on the $91,000 to be spent this year on Transportation and

Communications under Executive Support?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you talking under Intergovernmental Affairs?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Office of the Executive Council. Intergovernmental

Affairs, that is right, yes, 2.3.02 Executive Support.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not get to

question it, so basically under subhead 2.3.02 Executive Support, .03

Transportation and Communications, $91,000 budgeted last year, $91,000 spent and

$91,000 budgeted this year. Could the minister give some kind of a breakdown of

what that money, the $91,000 budgeted for this year, will be spent on? Details?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, as the hon. member said, $91,000 budgeted last

year, $91,000 spent and $91,000 budgeted for this year. The expenses relate not

only to travel but also to telecommunication costs.

I think, Madam Chair, in the breakdown last year, there was $80,000 actually

spent on travel and the remainder of the budget was spent on communications.

This is for the people, the support staff, the deputy ministers in

Intergovernmental Affairs that travel throughout the country, Ottawa. Wherever

they travel, that is their budget. I don't have the breakdown any more than as

the figure stated there. Last year $80,000 was spent in travel and $10,000 in

communications.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to also ask the minister under the same subhead, Executive

Support, 2.3.02, you budgeted last year $261,800 for salaries, you spent

$312,900, and this year you have budgeted $275,100. That extra $51,000 that was

a budget revised figure, could you give us a breakdown on who that money was

spent on - obviously, it was an extra position - and what that position may have

been within the department, and the purpose of it?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

That salary, for the benefit of the hon. member, includes four permanent

positions, temporary assistants and overtime. The increase for 2003-2004 is the

budgeted salary increase, the increase that was given. The revised figure in

2000-2002 shows an expense of, the hon. member said, $51,000 greater than

budgeted due to increased demand for temporary assistance, overtime, and savings

were realized in other areas to take that amount.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Could the minister explain the temporary assistance? Was it

one, two, or three individuals? How were those people hired on? Were they hired

on through the line department or did they come in through the Public Service

Commission?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Public Service Commission (inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance said that temporary does

not come through the Public Service Commission. In the Department of

Intergovernmental Affairs, we get a lot of temporary people in because of

certain demands on the department, if we are into a certain issue that temporary

help is hired. For example, if we could be into this situation now with respect

to the Terms of Union, there could be some permanent employees brought on with

specialties in this area who would only be there for a month or two months. That

happens a lot within Intergovernmental Affairs, some years more than others, but

this year that is what the $51,000 was. I can certainly get, for the hon.

member, precisely what activities that was and what the salaries were.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Under the same subhead, I would just like to ask the

minister - I think it is 05, Professional Services. The department had budgeted

$1,500 for that last year, in the revised figure you spent $30,000, and this

year you have budgeted $1,500 again. Could you explain that $30,000, why such an

increase? Just give us an explanation, I would say to the minister, of that

figure?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Subhead 05, Professional Services, again that relates to, as I

was telling the hon. member - in this particular case, the cost was associated

with a couple of reports, the McMillan report, the action plan and design of the

Council of Atlantic Premiers. This was work done for the Atlantic premiers, a

report done for the Atlantic premiers, and the cost was shared by all of the

provinces. That extra was the cost to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This was a study commissioned by the Atlantic premiers and cost-shared by the

four Atlantic provinces. That was the Province's share. Of course, that is a

one-time deal and this year it doesn't appear.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Under the same subhead,

section 10, Grand and Subsidies. Last year you had

budgeted $257,800, you actually spent $176,500 and this year you have budgeted

$340,800, which is a significant increase over what was even budgeted last year.

You only spent $176,500 last year and this year you have $340,800. Can you give

us some details as to why the revised figure has been down and this year it is

up significantly over what was actually budgeted last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, it relates to the activities participated in by Intergovernmental

Affairs. There are four or five councils that Intergovernmental Affairs is

involved in pretty much. They would be the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference

Secretariat, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers'

Secretariat and the Council of Atlantic Premiers. All of these organizations

require a membership fee. Last year, for example, to the Canadian

Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, the