May 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador has much to offer a tourist. From learning about the Basque Whaling

Site in Red Bay, Labrador, to taking in the musical and storytelling talents of

the St. John's Folk Festival, one of the oldest folk festivals in the Province,

to visiting L'Anse aux Meadows, the only authenticated Viking Site in North

America, our Province is rich in its culture and heritage.

The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is

continuing to develop private and public partnerships in an effort to further

advance the development of the Province's tourism product. One area where there

is great potential is the investigation and

interpretation of our shipwrecks.

Our history derives from the ocean and as a result has experienced many sea

diasters over hundreds of years. While always tragic, the shipwrecks have

provided archaeologists and historians with valuable information on our marine

heritage. Thousands of these sites lie off our shores.

Mr. Speaker, many of these shipwrecks are threatened through

the passage of time, actions of the sea, and looting of artifacts. As a result,

much of this valuable information is lost for all time, as is the opportunity to

study, interpret and develop important aspects of our maritime heritage. One

shipwreck which has tremendous development potential to increase public

awareness of this heritage and become a major tourist attraction is the

H.M.S. Saphire .

The H.M.S. Saphire sank in Bay Bulls Harbour during an

engagement with a French squadron on September 11, 1696. This is one of Canada's

earliest shipwrecks and is the only vessel of its size that sunk in Newfoundland

of artifacts were recovered from the shipwreck site during two archaeological

investigations in the 1970s, providing us with knowledge of life on board a

vessel during the 17th century and, indeed, adding to our knowledge of life in

general during that time. The value of the H.M.S. Saphire to our cultural

heritage has already been acknowledged through its designation as a Provincial

Historic Site in 1975.

Mr. Speaker, because of the significance of this wreck, I am

pleased to be able to inform hon. members that the government has committed

$25,000 for the completion of a feasibility study relating to the establishment

of an H.M.S. Saphire

Interpretation Centre in the community of Bay Bulls.

I am also pleased to inform hon. members that Mr. Cle Newhook and Mr. Don

Beaubier have been elected as interim company principles for the H.M.S.

Saphire Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set up to oversee research

and development pertaining to this shipwreck. Both gentleman, I think, are in

the gallery today. I welcome them here and thank them for their contribution in

this regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: This foundation has hired Axis Consulting to

complete the feasibility study. It is expected that the study will take several

months, at which time the findings will be presented to the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation - indeed, to the Cabinet of the Province - and

the H.M.S. Saphire Foundation.

We very much look forward to this study being brought

forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my pleasure to pass on my thanks to the

minister for seeing the importance of developing and preserving our history.

In Bay Bulls the Saphire , has great historical

significance not only to the Bay Bulls area on the Southern Shore but, at the

time, the Captain of that boat, Thomas Cleasby, set fire to the boat when he

knew they were being overcome by the French. They headed to the woods, in hiding

with other citizens of the area. They set fire to the boat and the boat exploded

and sank. Even though there had been a recognition in 1975, this has been the

first possible real effort to show that something on a more permanent basis can

occur.

Up off the Southern Shore, as you are well aware, it is

historic in terms of shipwrecks. It is really the graveyard of the Atlantic

Ocean. There are hundreds and hundreds of boats. Books have been written on

shipwrecks. In fact, a couple of businessmen in my district did a map just in

the area north of Cape Race, down to Cape Ballard, in that area - several

hundred - and they did a poster type map to show and locate each of these.

In fact, I invite people; there is a boat tour that goes out

of Chance Cove to take people out to those shipwreck sites. Many people,

particularly in Germany, are quite interested in exploring and developing this

particular part that has great promise in the future in tourism.

We would certainly like to see this occur on a positive

basis. It is, to my knowledge, the oldest, with the exception of the San Juan ,

in Red Bay. That is the only one that is probably known that is older, dating

way back into 1696.

It certainly has great significance there. It is another

opportunity, another anchor on which to build a tourism industry here to

complement the fishing industry in the area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Once again, it is great to see it

happening.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the Ministerial Statement. I think it is

important that our history and our heritage, which are deeply rooted with the

sea, are developed for the potential they have to increase the tourism industry

in the Province. I think it is very important that we identify that and promote

it for any tourists who come to the area.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the

artifacts that have already been removed from this site that are, it is my

understanding, currently in Ottawa, will be returned eventually to their

rightful place in the Province. I would also like to say, contrary to what the

Premier might think, this is probably the first casualty of the cod war.

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

and Agrifoods.

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

I take this opportunity today to announce National Forestry

Week from May 3 to May 8. It is sponsored nationally by the Canadian Forestry

Association and by the Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Protection Association

in our Province.

In the early 1920s, Forest Fire Prevention Week began with

the intention of encouraging greater public awareness about Canada's forests. At

that time, there was no apparent shortage of trees for industrial expansion, and

the greatest threat was from forest fires, mainly due to human causes.

National Forestry Week, as it is now known, was adopted in

1967. This was in response to more general recognition of the many needs - both

human and environmental.

National Forestry Week emphasizes greater awareness of the

nature and management of Canada's forests. Although special activities are

promoted each year by a nation-wide network of cooperators, National Forest Week

remains first and foremost a challenge to individual Canadians to learn more

about the nation's forest heritage and to support greater recognition of it.

The theme for National Forestry Week is, "Forest Fires -

Handle with Care." Forest fires can have devastating affects on human and

ecological values. Wildfires can lead to loss of human life and cause enormous

property damage by destroying infrastructure, recreational areas and timber.

Fires can also destroy ecologically sensitive areas such as critical fish and

wildlife habitat.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the number of human-caused

fires is disturbing. The vast majority of the 192 fires recorded last year were

caused by people. Only twenty-four were caused naturally, by lightning. The

remaining 168 fires in the Province were caused by carelessness in the woods.

This province saw a greater than average number of fires in

1998. The total area burnt, over 40,000 hectares, was mostly non-productive

forest land.

Our fire protection and management staff work hard to

advocate fire prevention by visiting schools, youth organizations and service

clubs, particularly during National Forest Week. Messages are aired through the

media, signs are posted on public highways and in cabin development areas.

"Beware and Prepare" public awareness kits are distributed to individuals,

cottage associations and other concerned groups to educate the public about

wildlife hazards, and provide information on property protection.

In addition, a Fire Order has been issued for the 1999

season. On the Island, there will be no open fires permitted after May 7, and

May 14 in Labrador.

The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is dedicated

to managing our Province's forest ecosystems, with a view to protecting and

developing our valuable resources. We strive to integrate modern and traditional

management strategies.

All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should enjoy continued

access to our forests for commercial and recreational activities with the

confidence that they are maintained responsibly.

I encourage all Members of the House of Assembly, and the

general public, to participate in National Forest Week and recognize the

contribution of our forests to our economic and social well being.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the current debate on some forestry

issues, I would also like to take the time to inform the Members of the House

that our department will host a Round Table on Forest Resources and Forest

Issues. Industry, labour, community representatives, along with other agencies,

have been invited to participate in this round table to be held on June 1, 1999

in Stephenville. It will provide a mechanism for dialogue among various

stakeholders on current and future forest policies and programs in the Province.

As our department prepares for the year 2000, it is important

that we all understand the key issues and develop strategies to sustain our

valuable forest resources.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Forestry

and Agrifoods for the ministerial statement beforehand.

I support this very important week. I think our forestry is a

very important part of our economy and our society in Newfoundland and Labrador

today. I think that forest fires do have a devastating effect on our economy and

our communities, particularly in the rural areas.

I am looking to the round table discussion that is coming up.

I think a lot of the concerns and issues pertaining to the forestry certainly

should come out in that round table discussion. I thank the minister for

initiating that. I am looking forward to sitting in on that.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, first of all, that I support National Forest

Week, and the focus on the forest resources of Canada and particularly our

Province.

I want to say that I think the minister's policies in the

forest area in looking after the forests are a failure. They have failed to deal

adequately with the issue of harvesters, to integrate that into the proper

harvesting of the forest. They have not dealt properly with the issue of

preservation. They were given a failure rate by the National Wildlife Fund for

preservation of our natural resources. We are the lowest in Canada, next to one

other province, in preservation of our natural areas. We have controversies over

the use of biological agents and bacterial agents in the forest.

Mr. Speaker, this round table I hope will focus on some of

these issues, and see if this minister starts listening to the people who know a

lot about the forest industry of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and how it affects their lives and

livelihood.

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am really making two statements

in one today, as I would like to update hon. members on two very successful

trade missions which are set to yield dividends for Newfoundland and Labrador

businesses.

From April 12 to April 15, eleven Newfoundland and Labrador

companies took

part in an intensive trade mission to New England. This was a

well-structured initiative of the four Atlantic Provinces and the Government of

Canada. It featured the Atlantic Premiers and forty-one companies from their

provinces uniting to form the "Team Atlantic" trade mission.

Over a four-day period, our Newfoundland and Labrador

companies took

part in pre-arranged meetings in Massachusetts, Vermont, New

Hampshire and Maine.

These companies demonstrated their great energy and

commitment to their ventures, and between them conducted ninety business

meetings within the four-day mission.

This mission was representative of our dynamic economy, with

its blend of both new and traditional sectors. Company products and services

ranged from food production to clothing to information technology.

It was a pleasure to assist these companies in making their

business contacts, and see the enthusiasm our New England trading partners have

for Newfoundland and Labrador products and services.

Team Atlantic received significant financial support from the

Canada/Atlantic Provinces COOPERATION Agreement on International Business

Development.

Following the New England mission, fourteen companies took

part in a business mission to Ireland organized by the St. John's Board of Trade

and Ireland Business Partnerships, which ran from April 16 to April 23.

I should note that two of these companies also took

part in

the Team Atlantic mission to New England.

The mission to Ireland was also led by Premier Tobin, and

stemmed directly from the Memorandum of Understanding on Economic Co-operation

signed between Ireland and Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996.

Agreements linked to our cultural ties, exchanges in research

and development and technology transfers all figured prominently in the Ireland

business mission.

These two trade missions featured a total of twenty-three

Newfoundland and Labrador companies with determination, vision and confidence in

their products.

These companies made a significant commitment of their time

and resources to join in these missions, and worked hard to make each an

unqualified success.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Business community is a full

partner in our efforts to maximize Newfoundland and Labrador's position in the

global marketplace, and I look forward to their participation in future

missions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize some of the

participants of both trade missions, a few of whom are in the gallery this

afternoon: Gary Follett from FGA Consulting Engineers; Hilda Pollard from the

Tourism Training Institute; Randy Gillespie and Ron Newhook from the Canadian

Centre for Marine Communications; Vince Withers and Kirk Tilley with Ireland

Business Partnerships; Gail Ryan with the St. John's Board of Trade; John Drover

with the Newfoundland Environmental Industries Association; Peter Austin, of

Austin Advertising; Dianna Day and Bruce Day from Infomedia; and Kevin Bussey

from True North Springs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I would like to thank each of the trade mission

participants for taking the time out of their busy schedules to be here this

afternoon.

In the coming months, we will be intensifying our focus on

these two key markets, Ireland and New England, and the very real opportunities

that these areas represent.

For the information of hon. members, and the media, I am

tabling a list of the twenty-three companies who took

part in these missions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a

copy of her Ministerial Statement. I just say to the minister that we are very

glad to see that there were eleven companies who went to New England and another

fourteen who went off to Ireland. I would only hope that over the next week or

several days you will find time to probably table in this House exactly what, if

any, business ventures we were able to tie into in New England that will benefit

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, exactly what, if anything,

we were able to do in Ireland which will again be of benefit to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We welcome such trade missions. At the end of the

day, we certainly trust that there is a benefit for our Province in these

particular ventures.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. I want to go on record once again as being supportive of these

efforts by the provincial government to diversify our economy and trade, in

particular with those parts of the world that we have had historical trading

relationships and involvements in culture and trade, in the New England states,

in Ireland and in the Caribbean.

As well, I note that one of the companies that was on the

Irish trip is called Rink Rat Productions. Despite its name, it is associated

with a t.v. production and show called Dooley Gardens which many of you

may have seen. This company is pursuing the doing of a movie in Ireland and in

Newfoundland on the song Sonny's Dream , written by, of course, Ron Hynes.

In Ireland they think it is an Irish song, and the efforts of these individuals

will be trying to produce a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: They will try to put together a documentary

musical showing the cultural connections, both then and now, between Ireland and

Newfoundland. I look forward to these and other developments from these types of

missions, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 5.4 of the

Internal Economy Commission Act, I wish to advise the House with respect to the

membership of the Commission of Internal Economy.

The members of the Commission are: the Member for Trinity

North in his capacity as Deputy Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Development

and Rural Renewal in his capacity as Government House Leader, the hon. the

Minister of Finance and Justice and the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources

and Agrifoods - both ministers have been appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council in their capacities as Ministers of the Crown -, the Member for

Ferryland in his capacity as Opposition House Leader, the Member for Lewisporte

as a member of the Opposition, and the Speaker who is Chair of the Commission.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In December 1998 there were a number of questions asked with

respect to the Newfoundland Government Fund Limited which is owned and

administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology.

When the Auditor General's document was tabled for 1998 it

indicated in that document that the operating licence for the Newfoundland

Government Fund Limited, commonly known as the Canada Immigration Investment

Fund, had been suspended because of non-compliance with the rules and

regulations associated with the Canada Immigration Investment Fund. Up until

September 30 that licence or the suspension was still in effect.

Can the minister inform the House today, or elaborate on if

that fund is now in a position where the federal department has given it

permission to go ahead and continue to market itself? If not, why not?

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, the fund has been fully marketed even at the time

that the federal government asked us to suspend marketing this fund. It was

fully subscribed. As a matter of fact, I think it is oversubscribed knowing

that, as you do the due diligence, some of the potential investors and potential

immigrants may not meet all the criteria. Normally you would oversubscribe, and

that was done in this case.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the minister again. With respect

to the fund, why was the licence suspended by the federal government, the arm

responsible for immigration in Canada? Could she elaborate to the House on why

the fund was suspended? Minister, could you tell the House that today?

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer

that question.

The fund was suspended at the time that it was because we had

not met the time lines of the investment fund. It is a private-public sector

investment fund and we were seeking ways to implement it, both to government's

advantage to build public infrastructure with. We were unable to meet the time

lines because we were not satisfied that government was receiving the benefit it

should from such an arrangement.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in the Auditor General's

report there were more reasons given than that why the fund was suspended. I

would like to refer directly to what was found by the Auditor General with

respect to the consulting fees that the Auditor General was unable to determine.

I will quote, from page 178 of her report:

"As indicated in Figure 1, $688,992 of the Corporation's

expenditure... relates to consulting and professional fees. The Corporation has

not developed any policies regarding the selection, monitoring and evaluation of

consultants. Furthermore, the Corporation could not provide information as to

how the various consultants were selected."

I would like to ask the minister: How were the consultants

selected for this specific fund?

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer readily

available in written form here, but if my memory serves me correctly, there was

one consultant for all of the provinces for this fund. I think it may have been

the CPP, if my memory serves me correctly. I have not seen the exact details of

it now for some number of weeks but I can certainly find out the exact details.

I know that the consultant who was doing this was for a set fee and was the one

that was agreed to through the Memorandum of Understanding with the federal

government, and well within the confines of the agreement that we had with the

federal government. I can certainly get the details of the information and have

it tabled in this House.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, the details of the question I'm

asking were contained in the Auditor General's report, so let me refresh the

minister's memory. Under consulting and professional fees there was a $64,183

consulting fee paid for auditing and accounting; there was an additional $22,111

for consulting generally; distribution, marketing and reporting was close to

$500,000; and legal consulting was $147,810, for a total of $688,992.

The question is: How were these consultants selected? Based

upon what? Was it based upon the criteria that we operate in the public service

of Newfoundland and Labrador, or was it based on some other criteria only known

to Cabinet?

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: No, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I should apologize that I have not memorized

the total Auditor General's Report. I do not think it is reasonable to expect

that I could give you every fact and figure in the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: These funds that you outlined are perfectly

acceptable - these amounts - when you consider this, if my memory serves me

correctly again, is about a $30 million fund. These consultants and all of the

hiring was done within the confines of the federal-provincial agreement that was

put in place for this agreement. As I have said in my previous answer, I will be

very willing to get you all of the details and have them tabled in this House.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister says that those are all

perfectly legitimate, and that may very well be. The question is: For legal and

other consulting work that was there, did everybody have a chance to bid?

She has indicated that it was legitimate. I find it passing

strange that the minister responsible, on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of

the people who own the investment fund - it is pretty clear here - said that all

the expenses were legitimate, that the corporation, however, had not requested

any support for marketing expenses and as a result the corporation cannot be

assured that it has paid for legitimate marketing expenses.

I would like to ask the minister, with respect to that

section: Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, or the directors

of the Newfoundland Investment Fund, taken into account what was in the Auditor

General's Report? And has it now received the documentation for over $500,000

for consulting fees that this Province released to those consultants?

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, now twice, I

will get the details. I am assured and, if I remember correctly, the letter was

sent to the Auditor General outlining the questions that arose out of the

report. They were all adequately answered, and I will ensure that the

information is brought forward.

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

Opposition.

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

In the Budget of 1998, the government announced with much

fanfare that $25 million of the Immigration Investment Fund - it would raise $25

million, and that $25 million would go towards the cost of constructing new

health care facilities in the Province.

In December, under direct questioning to the Minister of

Finance with respect to these projects, he indicated that there were some

difficulties. I could quote Hansard for him, but I do not think there is any

need. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance today - if he is the

appropriate minister, of course - with respect to the financing of these

hospitals: Has the Immigration Investment Fund been fully realized to what

government wanted it to do? As of now, are all of those projects proceeding?

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

Justice.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, all of the projects

are proceeding.

The difficulty we had in implementing and using the fund was

that Ottawa had fairly restrictive criteria as to how the money could be

utilized. Essentially what they wanted were public-private partnerships. It took

us some time because we were not keen on the idea of going into lease-back

arrangements involving the private sector; so we received sign-off from Ottawa,

if my memory serves me correctly, some time in January or so, which led to an

announcement in the Budget that we used the fund for several hospitals.

I think my recollection is that we received sign-off from

Ottawa as to the methodology of how we would use the money out of the fund some

time in January, and in the Budget we announced we would use it for, I think,

four hospitals.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Minister of

Finance, again, if he is the appropriate minister, because it seems that the

Minister of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has been

involved in this, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, on behalf of

the people, as owners of that fund, and obviously the Minister of Finance in

terms of dispersement through which government's policies will be realized or

not realized.

Is the minister saying today that the $25 million has been

collected by the fund, and that all of the negotiations between Ottawa and the

Province are concluded? He indicated early in December that the decision had not

been made, he had hoped it would be made in the new year, that government was

exploring a proper way to utilize the funds from this Immigration Investment

Fund for public infrastructure such as hospitals. Have you concluded those

discussions? Can you at least elaborate further to the House what made up

(inaudible) those conclusions between you, on behalf of the Province, and Ottawa

have been and will be for the people of the Province?

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

Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I mentioned in response to the earlier question, the issue

was whether or not you would be able to spend the money directly or have a

public-private partnership with buybacks at the end of some subscribed period,

be it five years or twenty years.

If memory serves me correctly, the hon. member asked the

question in the context of a call for proposal or tender that had occurred in

December. There were some issues that we wanted to get resolved. I told him at

the time that the government would review it, and if it were in the best

interests of the Province we would not award the tenders because, of course, all

tenders carry a proviso that the lowest or any tender is not accepted.

A committee of Cabinet, Treasury Board, met over a protracted

period of time and came to the conclusion that we were not satisfied with the

arrangement. We had ongoing meetings with Ottawa and some time in January or

early February, in that time period, we resolved some concerns we had about the

implementation and spending of the money.

As matters presently stand, I believe the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation is calling for the planning of the hospitals

and will be proceeding with the construction within due course.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary.

So, government has made a decision on how it will spend the

money. Has it made a decision on whether it will be a leasing arrangement, that

it will be done through a third party, which we talked about and you mentioned

in this House before? If so, could you elaborate on that? Could you tell us

directly what decision government has made on the financing of these health care

facilities in the Province? Will it be a leasing arrangement? If so, how long?

Who have you made the arrangements with? What is that third party? And any more

details surrounding the expenditure of some $25 million of public money which,

while used from the Immigration Investment Fund, ultimately is our

responsibility as a Province to pay back.

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

Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the question as notice and I will file a more

complete answer - myself and the minister - tomorrow as to where we are with

these matters. It was decided in the Budget to use it for hospitals. I say to

the hon. member, the exact implementation, we do not have that information at

hand. There is a normal process for calling for tenders for design and so on. We

will update the House probably either later this afternoon - although it might

be a little late, given that we have half an hour - or tomorrow, and give a

fuller answer to his question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for

the Minister of Education.

Educational reform was intended to bring about better access

to programming for our students to better prepare them for the coming century.

Parents, students, and others expected this to happen and demand improved

quality education.

I - as they - am finding out that in many areas, in many

schools in our Province, students are getting less options or have been given

less options in programming than they had prior to this school reform. This is

not what the people of this Province voted for. Why, Minister, is this

happening?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it certainly was not government's

intention either, so if it is happening it certainly was not because of any

direction taken by this government.

When we went through education reform, it was to consolidate

where we could to make sure that at the end of the day we have best, efficient

use of the resources available to us. From my understanding, that is exactly

what the boards have done throughout this Province - these elected school

boards.

As a government what we did, in fact, was: When you look at

declining student enrolments, if we had, in fact, followed the formula that

existed, that was put in place by the Progressive Conservative Administration

several years ago, we would have in fact have seen over 400 teachers removed

from the system. We chose not to do that. In fact, what we did was reinvest 236

positions at a cost of $11.4 million.

The decisions that were taken should have no impact on

programming. However, let me state that if it is, what we have undertaken to do

is to meet with every education director with each of the boards to try and

determine the impact of our decisions based on the feedback we have been

getting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again it is the programming

and access to programming, and the programming limited choices that students are

getting that is the problem. There are numerous examples out there of limited

choices that students have in this current situation.

I have received many calls from around this Province from

parents and students who are finding themselves very limited in looking at where

they are going to go for at least next September.

I spoke to the principal of Lester Pearson Memorial High. I

had e-mail from parents as well as students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. HEDDERSON: They have to deal with six to eight less

courses next September in core areas like science and social studies. Minister,

why is this possible? Why is this possible, that students have to do with less

coming up in the upcoming school year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, again let me say that it certainly

is not this government's intention that there will be any impact on programming

as a result of decisions taken through educational reform.

Let me give the hon. member an example in terms of access to

programs in the school system today. Student access to Computer Technology 3200,

for example, in the urban areas has gone from 71.2 per cent in 1996-1997 to 76.9

per cent in 1998-1999. In the rural areas it has gone from 27.5 per cent in

1996-1997 to 42.7 per cent in the rural areas in 1997-1998. Student access to

biology, the same thing, and I could go on and on in terms of access to

programming.

If it is having an impact, what I have asked is to have the

education director show us the impact that it has had in terms of teacher

allocations and the impact on programming throughout the school system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again it is interesting that

the minister would bring up those types of examples. Let me give an example

back, and that is the Chemistry 3000 Level at Lester Pearson Memorial High,

where the principal has to go into a class of thirty-eight and ask for at least

fifteen to twenty of them to drop the course so it can be offered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again I ask the minister: Will the

minister act now to ensure that schools, especially in rural Newfoundland, are

not decimated with regard to programming?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Chemistry 3202, in 1996-1997 in

the urban parts of this Province we had 91.3 per cent of our students accessing

Chemistry 3202. Today, 1998-1999, we have 98.2 per cent of our student

population.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In the rural areas, in 1996-1997 we had 74.6

per cent of our student population accessing Chemistry 3202. Today, we have 77.6

per cent.

In every instance we have seen increased access to

programming in both urban and rural areas of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, the question is: Those statistics,

will they stand up for September of 1999? Can the minister ensure that the

students of this Province, especially when it comes to high school courses like

chemistry, will be able to continue on with the same program with which they

started out in Level I? Yes or no?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the numbers I read out, in fact,

were for 1998-1999. That takes into account September, 1999. So, yes, they can

count on having the same access that they had prior.

Again, let me reiterate that I have undertaken to meet with

the directors of education of every school board in this Province to try and

determine what, if any, impact teacher reductions will have had on the

programming for our students in the education system.

We put back in 236 teaching positions at a tune of $11.4

million. We could have removed 418 based on declining student enrolment; 4,000

fewer students in the system this coming school year. Again, let me say: We are

listening but I want to be shown where the impact is. It is one thing to say it.

What we are saying now is, show us. If you can show us there is an impact, then

obviously we will have to look at that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Our health care system has reached a point

where there are not enough specialist nurses available to provide the services

needed. Recently we had cardiac surgery cancelled, we had the coronary care unit

at the Grace Hospital shut down for several days because there are no specialist

nurses in critical care.

Now nurses who are specialized in neonatology are not

available this past weekend, and contingency measures were put in place to fly

babies to the Isaac Walton Killam Hospital in Halifax should the need arise. We

have one more baby this weekend required to be on a ventilator, and air

ambulance would have to transfer that baby to Halifax requiring a specialist

with them, a resident doctor, a transport nurse and a respiratory technologist

along with that transportation crew.

This is not a cost-efficient way to run our health care

system, especially when there are empty beds in those units. This is crisis

management. What steps are you taking to ensure that this does not happen again?

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

Community Services.

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

I know that the CEO of the Health Care Corporation addressed

this issue. I think it was on Thursday or Friday of last week. We do know that,

in particular, there are times during the year when we have peak admissions into

the NICU, the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. At this particular time I know that

the PICU, the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, is also experiencing difficulty

because there are number of extremely difficult cases which I know require extra

care to be provided. All those things to be considered I think are of

importance, particularly that there are a number of periods during the year when

you will get peak admissions into those particular units.

The contingency plan that has been put in place is one that

is in place on a regular basis if the number of patients admitted to the unit

exceeds the capacity. In this particular case there have been plans made with

Halifax to transport babies and it is quite common. In fact, if there is an

increase in the number of patients in the unit, particularly if the patient is

from the West Coast, it is not unusual, in fact, to airlift that patient to

Halifax.

It is true that at this particular point in time there is an

added stress on that unit and it does happen, and in those cases there are

contingency plans. Would we prefer it did not happen? Yes, we would. In fact, in

many case we do have the staff from other units that can help out. In this

particular case - and I am not sure if the member opposite is aware of it -

there have been some extenuating circumstances, and I know it has been difficult

to provide the extra staff to offset those particular needs at this time.

The contingency plan in place is one that we have had in

place a number of times throughout the last number of years that I am aware of,

and it will continue to be in place, if in fact the need arises for a bed and a

bed is not available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is trying to down play the incident. There are

only three nurses cross-trained at the Grace to be able to go to the Janeway

Hospital. The minister knows that as well as I do and she is down playing this.

It has reached the worst point it has ever reached because nurses who are

specialized in this area are now not available for the first time, I say to the

minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) is keeping an airplane pilot, a

crew and all the medical staff on alert, with several empty beds in the unit?

Minister, there is a very simple and non-expensive solution to this problem. If

a nurse is trained in a specialty area and such nurses are in short supply, why

not hire that nurse on a permanent rather than a casual basis?

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

Community Services.

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

As the member opposite knows, we are still in the process of

having discussions with our boards looking at implementing the conversion of our

casuals to permanent, and also in identifying and creating the new positions

that will be required throughout the system. We have asked our boards to work

with us on identifying the numbers. I know the boards have been working with the

local branches to try to expedite and fast track the filling of those positions.

I am not down playing the situation. We have recognized and

stated that there are issues, that there problems, particularly with respect

with recruitment issues around specialty units and some of the other areas. We

have acknowledged that. We are working with the boards to try to identify a

fast-track approach to filling these positions as quickly as possible, granting

as many of those nurses permanent positions as soon as possible. As I said

earlier, those discussions are still ongoing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Crisis management at its highest. Minister, there are nurses

in the system who have specialized in neonatology, and there are nurses in the

system who have specialized in critical care, but because they were casual, many

of them still wanting to work in their field have taken up permanent jobs in

medicine and surgery and are now not available in those speciality areas.

I ask the minister: Will she move and halt this loss of

specialist nurses in those areas and allow them to be hired permanently in their

specialist area? It is a simple question, Minister. Just say yes.

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

In terms of filling the positions, there is a process that

you must follow. The process is that those positions have to be posted so that

all people, whether they are permanent or casual, have an opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite is

saying that they have not been posted. In fact, a number have been posted for

quite a while. The process is that in order to fill the positions they have to

be posted internally so all employees, whether they are permanent or casual, can

have access to the posting. Once those positions are filled, and others become

vacant from those positions, they are posted and they have to be filled from an

internal process.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous question, the boards

have been working at the local level to try to find and identify ways to

fast-track that process, so that in fact we can capture those people before they

decide to move on, we can capture the expertise before they actually apply for

positions outside their area of speciality. That is what is in process right

now, the process of trying to fast-track the filling of those positions as they

are now and being posted and filled in all of the boards across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, at the opening of the House

last Wednesday you read a ministerial statement outlining government's success

in working out a solution to the problems that plagued S.C.B. Fisheries down in

Bay d'Espoir. I ask the minister: Who is now in control of S.C.B. Fisheries? Is

it your department, or is it the former owners?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not say last

week that we had found a solution or an answer to the success of Bay d'Espoir

aquaculture, S.C.B. Fisheries, in the future. What I did say, clearly, was that

government had put its last dollar, the taxpayers' dollars, into S.C.B.

Fisheries, that we had found out that there were major problems in the overall

operations when we did an audit, and that we were backing off now, and the

owners and the shareholders of S.C.B. Fisheries would be the operators when they

met certain conditions: we would not release the securities unless they had new

investors, they had a new manager, and that we had confidence that the new

investors and new managers were going to be the operators of the S.C.B.

Fisheries in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what I am

hearing here. The minister is saying that government is not in control. the

present shareholders of S.C.B. Fisheries is in control, but still the minister

is saying that you, S.C.B. Fisheries, must put a new manager in control and you

must create or have a new investor. I ask the minister: How can he bring about

those requirements if he is not in control of the company?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Oh man, where are you coming from? Mr.

Speaker, it is simple. We put $6.4 million into a guaranteed loan last year for

S.C.B. Fisheries. We went down there and we did an audit. We had an audit done

of the operations of S.C.B. Fisheries and we found some problems. We corrected

those problems.

We have said now to the shareholders of S.C.B. Fisheries: We

will hold in place the securities on that loan until you reach certain

conditions. One of those conditions is to find an appropriate manager. The other

condition is to get an investor. If they do not meet those conditions we will

maintain our securities. They can operate it, that is up to them, but unless

they meet those conditions we will not release those securities. If the hon.

member does not understand that, meet with me after Question Period and I will

take you through the whole program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain

resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow move that this

House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority

Guarantee Act, 1957.

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act";

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act";

and,

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Health and Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Community Services.

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Denturist Act."

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Securities Act."

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition signed by in excess of 1,700 people who say:

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

in parliament assembled, that

WHEREAS throughout the issues of education reform both the

provincial government and the Avalon East School Board assured parents of the

district of an enhanced and more efficient education system; and

WHEREAS the Avalon East Board has been promised a sum of $15

million to carry out the necessary renovations to existing schools and provide

for a smooth transition to the new school system; and

WHEREAS the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local

1560 has already provided their employer with viable alternatives to layoffs

which would essentially negate any additional cost for the school year;

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct

the government to intervene in this dispute and have both parties sit down with

a view to settling this matter within the framework of the Union proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the board made the decision last

Thursday night which was not favourable to the position taken by the

petitioners, but I think we have to understand that in this Province the

unemployment rate, the lack of stable jobs, the lack of quality jobs which have

a history, which have some seniority attached to them, which have a decent union

agreement, is diminishing rapidly. We in public life, with public

responsibilities, I believe have an obligation to preserve jobs where it is

possible to do so.

In this particular case the $15 million that is being made

available to the school board, some of which - and I don't know. All of it

obviously is not going to be used between now and September, but much of it is

being used between now and September to make schools ready to meet the different

requirements of schools, depending on if a school is changing from a junior high

to an elementary or vice versa. Obviously the facilities for washrooms, for many

other facilities - lunchrooms, cafeterias - are all having to be renovated and

changed.

Now there is a force here of tradespeople who are employed by

the school board, many of whom have fifteen, sixteen, eighteen or more years of

seniority who are available to do some of this work. What is happening, under

the pretext of a shortfall for this particular fiscal year for the school board,

is the lay-offs are taking place, despite the fact that the union has made

available to the employer, through proposals that would see people take

vacations early and other matters to prevent lay-offs. Despite that, the board

has decided to go ahead and lay off these individuals.

I think there is a role here for government to play. If we do

not amend the legislation or the act to ensure that decisions of this nature are

made in a proper manner, surely the minister can get involved to see whether or

not this is an appropriate approach to be taken by the school board in the case

where jobs are able to be preserved, where money is being made available by the

public through the minister's department, supervised to some extent - at least

with contracts over $20,000 - by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation.

I think this is a situation where the minister's

intervention, even now at this date, could provide support to the position taken

by CUPE that they have these employees, that they are long-standing, loyal,

long-service employees of the school board, that they are entitled to

consideration for employment and to have their employment circumstances taken

into consideration, and not be treated as mere assets of a board to be disposed

of as they might dispose of equipment they no longer have a use for.

This is a very different matter. I think the minister has

some responsibility here. I do not know whether the minister had taken any

action as a result of a petition presented by me. The same petition, signed by

hundreds of members, was presented in this House last week. The minister may

have made some intervention. I have my doubts. I would like to ask her if she

would reply to this petition and tell us what she has done to ensure that the

Avalon East Board takes its responsibilities for its employees seriously and

looks after them.

That is the petition. I hope that the minister has been

listening and will respond to the wishes of the petitioners and assist the

employees of the school board in preserving their employment and carrying out

their duties to look after the schools, the some eighty schools of this board,

Mr. Speaker, which they have been doing for many years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of

Assembly. It is from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thought the hon. member was responding.

MR. H. HODDER: This is a new petition, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a new petition.

I guess we just have to move on to new petitions. Is the hon.

minister going to speak?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I thought there

would be someone supporting that petition.

To speak to the matter with the Avalon East School Board, and

I spoke in the House of Assembly last week to this, clearly the decision that

has been taken has been one that has been taken by the board in its entirety,

again, looking at the personnel that they employ. I have to assume that when you

take into account the safety of the children that the board has, in fact, taken

that into account in making their decision. Having said that, that would be the

area I would be most concerned with if, in fact, in laying off these employees

at the end of the day there was some suggestion that safety would be an issue.

That certainly has not been brought to my attention that that is in fact the

case.

Whether or not the Avalon East reverses its decision is

entirely up to the board. I certainly will not be interfering in that decision,

but I do recognize the long-standing employees of that board and I recognize

this is a serious matter for them. I would like to think that given the amount

of work that is to be done and the $15 million that has been allocated, at the

end of the day common sense will prevail and that at the end of the day both

parties will come out of this winners.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am hoping that the decision is not

a final one by the board, but again I am not about to tell the board what to do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some

residents of Mount Pearl, St. John's, Makinsons and Hodgewater Line.

The prayer of the petition to the hon. House of Assembly is:

We the undersigned, as taxpayers of the City of St. John's,

the City of Mount Pearl, Makinsons and Hodgewater Line, as cabin owners do

petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade the Hodgewater

Line with class A road gravel, or if possible to pave it.

Mr. Speaker, the petition has been signed by most of the

residents of Makinsons, has been signed by the people who live along the

Hodgewater Line. The prayer of the petition is that the roadway over there be

upgraded.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking the government to do

something with the road. It is graded down now to bedrock and the culverts are

broken. There is very little road gravel left, and when the department does

grade the road there is nothing left there to grade at all.

The petitioners say that there are a large number of loaded

dump trucks and heavy equipment travelling over the Hodgewater Line and using

the road as a shortcut from coming west on the Trans-Canada Highway to go to Bay

Roberts and surrounding areas. The petitioners, some of whom live there full

time, also say that they are unable at times to get ambulance service to the

area. I can read from the letter.

I say to the hon. Minister of Fisheries, it says here that

there are also a great number of retirees living year round on Hodgewater Line,

and they run into problems such as getting fuel oil delivered to their cabins

and homes because of poor conditions of the road. They have also requested an

ambulance on a couple of occasions due to medical conditions and have been

refused, again because of the poor condition of the road.

Mr. Speaker, these people - who are a combination of

residents, some of the them are part time in summer cabins and that kind of

thing and some of them are full time - have asked the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs if he would look into this matter together, I guess, with the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to see if that road can be

upgraded to make it suitable for use. The total distance is about four miles

long.

I say to the Government House Leader that these people have

every right to have their petition presented. You may not agree with it, I say

to the Government House Leader, but they have a right, like everybody else in

this House, to have their petition presented. I say to the Government House

Leader that his verbosity over there may indicate that he may disagree with the

petition and petitioners but these petitioners also have a right to be heard.

They are asking for the Hodgewater Line and area to be upgraded, and that is

their right. In particular, I ask on behalf of the people who live there full

time, for the residents of Makinsons who are living full time in the area, for

the people of Hodgewater Line who live there full time. They have a right to

make sure that their road is passable at all times.

I know there is some dialogue within the department as to the

responsibility of cabin owners to maintain their own road, and that has been

done in a great number of instances, but when you have people who live on a

roadway that has been maintained by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation or its predecessor, the Department of Highways, when they say

they want to have their road upgraded, they have a right to have their voice

heard in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I present the petition signed, as I say again,

by a great number of residents of Makinsons and by some of the people who live

in St. John's, Mount Pearl and Conception Bay South who also own cottages in

that area as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member presenting a new

petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go by without

making a few comments about the petition just presented by the hon. member

opposite.

I have listened over the last number of weeks to the Member

for Baie Verte, the Member for Bonavista South -

MR. TULK: Me.

MR. EFFORD: - the Member for Bonavista North, talk about

the condition of roads in their particular districts. In fact, the Member for

Baie Verte on quite a number of occasions talked to me personally about it when

I was Minister of Transportation, about the hundreds of kilometres that people

living in his district - and the Member for Bonavista South - the condition of

the roads, the school buses going over the roads day after day with children on

the buses and the poor condition of the roads. Here we have an hon. member stand

in this House of Assembly, presenting a petition -

MR. TULK: Supporting a petition.

MR. EFFORD: - supporting a petition to get a cabin road

paved in this Province today when we have hundreds of kilometres of road that

people need for transportation, for their own personal use, for school buses, or

commercial. It is absolutely unbelievable.

He also made reference, in presenting the petition, about

access to ambulances to people living in the community. The one thing that I

have been criticised for by colleagues on both sides of the House is that

everything in the District of Port de Grave is paved. Even the Mayor of St.

John's said: Right up to the windows, in the back of the houses, roads were

paved out in the district.

Here the hon. member is saying in the House of Assembly that

people who need the health services, the roads are not good enough for the

ambulance to drive over. It is absolutely unbelievable. The only people who use

that road now are mostly people from St. John's who have cabins, and they want

to go out for a leisurely weekend to spend a weekend in their cabin -

AN HON. MEMBER: Inside the overpass syndrome.

MR. EFFORD: Inside the overpass syndrome. That is

absolutely right.

I just cannot imagine the member opposite, with his own

colleagues, looking for roads to be paved - $35 million access road from Roaches

Line going right down to Carbonear, when it is completed, $35 million;

Conception Bay North road going right through the communities. Every road going

through every community out there is paved - every single road going through

every community - and the hon. member is saying there is a dire need to get that

road paved because of access for ambulances going to the communities. It is

absolutely wrong.

If you are going to St. John's, every road is paved. If you

are going to Carbonear, every road is paved. There is absolutely no logic in

what the hon. member is presenting to the House of Assembly. He should go back

and check with Mr. Oliver and find out exactly what his point is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to present a petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned nurses of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer:

We, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, have honestly

and openly conveyed our concerns about the failing health care system in this

Province. In good faith, and under the collective bargaining process of this

Province, we attempted to negotiate these issues with the Liberal government.

Premier Tobin and the Liberal government showed their lack of

respect for nurses' concerns and made a mockery of this Province's collective

bargaining process by legislating nurses back to work without binding

arbitration.

If the Liberal government honestly wishes to pursue

constructive dialogue with the nurses of this Province in an attempt to help

solve the existing health care crisis, we wish to inform the House of Assembly

this can be made possible only if the Liberal government admits they made a

mistake in not acknowledging the depth and scope of the crisis facing health

care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and, secondly, the hon. House

of Assembly repeals Bill 3 and the Liberal government resumes bargaining in good

faith with the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador by using the collective

bargaining process that existed before Bill 3.

This is, once again, indicative of the lack of respect for

nurses here in our Province. Day after day I have raised issues of nursing

concerns and other health concerns, even today in this House, for example, on

the very nature of what this petition is about, that the government has failed

to act in the best interest of the people of this Province.

Nurses go out at their own expense and train in specialty

areas. They train in neonatology. A nurse in neonatology just this past little

while, who was only casual, got a permanent job offer on a medicine floor. She

took the permanent job in medicine as opposed to waiting by a beeper or a

telephone to get a call to come in, under two minutes' notice, to get there as

soon as possible.

There is a simply solution, I say to the minister today. It

is the same thing; a lot of those problems can be resolved. Why do you have

casual nurses in the specialty area when there are not enough of them? Why don't

you put them on permanently?

We had a heart surgery cancelled the week before last. They

shut down, lock, stock and barrel, the Coronary Care Unit at the Grace Hospital

for several days. Why? Because there were no critical care nurses available to

be called to come in.

They turned three patients away from the Health Sciences

Centre. They said: We cannot accommodate them. We have no nurses to work. We are

below the required number right now. We have calls in, trying to get someone to

come in.

I know nurses who are out in the system who are called in -

up to this weekend, up to Friday when I spoke to somebody - for twelve

consecutive days there was a head nurse told by her supervisor to get into work,

we cannot get nurses. This is not in critical care. This was not even in the

neonatology. This was on a normal floor in the hospital. It is happening on

medicine floors, on surgery floors; it is critical.

There is going to be even a greater shortage of nurses. There

is only forty-two, I think, graduating this year, because we are going through a

phase to phase out the different schools of nursing and in the centre for

nursing excellence. The last group are graduating, the Memorial University crew

of forty-two or forty-three, this year. Then we are going to have a shortage

graduating. We used to have about 300 nurses, I think, from the different

schools of nursing here; eighty, ninety and 100 from St. Clare's, the General,

the Grace, and at Western out in Corner Brook. It was traditional to have large

numbers. They are leaving the Province. They are going for better pay. We have a

shortage in specialty areas, and we cannot act to solve some serious problems

that are resulting in cancellation of heart surgery.

When you have twelve being diagnosed every week in heart

surgery and less than ten people getting done each week, how can you possibly

catch up?

It is not acceptable. If you could not get a surgeon to do

the job, that is one thing, but we have a surgeon sitting there with no cases to

do; a heart surgeon sitting there with no cases to do. There are less than ten

getting done. Two already were here and no nurse to come in. They had to cancel

the surgery because they could not get a critical care nurse. After going

through all the trouble to recruit a third surgeon, it does not mean

diddly-squat to the system because the two that are there can handle up to ten

and it never goes over ten. It was supposed to be fixed; put in six extra beds

in a Coronary Care Unit, a step down in Intensive Coronary Care at the Health

Science to accommodate heart patients only. We solved some of the problems with

anaesthetists and under the profusionists, and now nurses.

Look, it is one problem after another. It is crisis

management. When a fire starts you try to put it out and there is another there.

You are not looking at the whole picture. They are all intertwined. We have to

have a staff ready to go to work. If one part of that particular cog in that

wheel is not functioning, we do not get a result.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, just to finish up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the

petition by the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader. I thank you

for the opportunity.

The member opposite knows full well, as all members of this

House, when Bill 3 was brought to this House it was not done lightly. It was a

very serious matter that this government took very seriously. It was not a

matter that this government took any pleasure in, but yet we were to act on the

responsibility of restoring health care to this Province.

What we need to look at now in going forward is not looking

behind. We have an obligation coming out of the settlement to nurses, and that

obligation is to process 325 new nursing positions. In doing so, in trying to

process 325 new nursing positions, there is a difficulty and there is a time

frame involved.

It is difficult to actually see the benefits of processing

those new positions because it takes time to do that. There is a process in

place by the nurses' collective bargaining agreement that requires that a

posting be done in all health institutions. There is a system whereby the

casuals apply for permanence, and there is bumping, and it continues on in that

manner. It probably will take a course of time before all institutions in the

Province can see the benefit of those new positions, but those new positions

will cost $21 million. That is not $21 million forever; it is $21 million

annually.

I want to say to nurses that it was a difficult decision to

come forward with Bill 3. It is natural to find anger and frustration attached

to it. That is a natural emotion. We found ourselves in a position to take

control, to do the responsible thing. We wanted to restore our health care

system in this Province and we were requested to do so by the Newfoundland and

Labrador health care associations, but I want to say to nurses that Bill 3 is

unique. It is meant to be a one contract only and it has no bearing on future

contracts; nor does it have any bearing on existing collective agreements now in

process.

Bill 3 is behind us and what we need now is the cooperation

with nurses, with government, with health care, so we can go on with the

business of improving our health care system. What is important today is working

together, bringing in the new positions, working with nurses to see other issues

that we can resolve as a team.

Thank you.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of my colleague, the

Opposition House Leader and the Member for Ferryland, in supporting the petition

as just presented and to say to the minister that I am not so sure, Minister,

that if you on that side of the House had this to do all over again, whether

this petition or whatever, or this motion of returning to work, would ever have

been presented in this House. I believe that you thoroughly misread the support

of the nurses' union in this Province, the support of the public in this

Province, and some day, Minister, it will be remembered.

The nurses of this Province are very upset, and rightly so.

When we talk to different nurses day in and day out, some of them are working

now triple time-and-a-half. That is what they are being paid. We have nurses who

work in ICU today who are now being told they cannot take any leave, they cannot

have any summer vacation. Minister, that is happening, whether we have our ears

closed or we do not want to believe that is happening but that is happening.

We have all sorts of things going on at our hospitals but

there does not seem to be a cure. Legislating nurses back to work will not cure

the problems in health care in this Province. Saying to nurses in this Province

that you cannot have a summer vacation will not cure the health care problems in

this Province. By saying to people that we do ten heart surgeries a week but we

are bringing in another twenty; and our waiting list, instead of decreasing, is

increasing, then there is no cure. There is no cure.

It is little help to the people who lie in beds at the Health

Sciences Centre and wait to be told: Yes, tomorrow morning it is your turn. Yes,

tomorrow morning you will have the opportunity to go down and have your surgery

performed.

I was in there last night, Minister, visiting somebody in my

family, by marriage, who today - hopefully today - is being done. He was

scheduled to go down at 7:00 a.m. for an operation that they told him could take

anywhere from four to six hours. He was due to go down today. He has been at St.

Clare's for two weeks, lying and waiting and waiting: You are going to be done

tomorrow. You cannot be done tomorrow; you are going to be done the next day.

You cannot be done the next day; you are going to be done the next day. You

cannot be done the next day, and on and on it goes.

I talked last year about a phone call I had from a lady in

Marystown whose father had been prepped seven times to go for open heart

surgery, and the ninth time he finally got done. I don't know if anybody

realizes the strain that has on the individuals, both men and women, who have to

have this surgery performed; and not only on the individuals who await the

surgery, I say to the minister, but to the families of those people. Go in and

walk around the fifth floor. Go in and out of some of the rooms, and take the

time to talk to the individuals who are in there. You do not have to go to the

Health Sciences. You can go to St. Clare's, you can go to the Grace, and you can

talk to people who are waiting to have this surgery performed.

So, it was no great shakes to legislate the nurses in this

Province back to work. I believe that if the polling was done on this one,

Minister, it was done wrong, because the support for the nurses' union in this

Province is still there today by the general public. The support is still there

today and, I say to the minister, they will not ever, ever forget this

particular piece of legislation.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly.

It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been

upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this

section of roadway, Route 235, is in such a

terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses

serving schools in the area, and schoolchildren are finding their daily trips

over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave five kilometres of Route 235 from

Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that come almost

on a daily basis, I say to members opposite, where you have a group of

schoolchildren who have to travel - I suppose the whole trip is probably about

eight or nine kilometres. Some of the road is in very good condition and has

held up very well, but five kilometres of the road is in terrible condition.

If you drive over it, you will find the shoulders have all

broken away. You will find huge potholes. The Department of Works, Services and

Transportation has to go down on a continuous basis to patch the potholes.

When that happens in the wintertime, they use a form of coal

mix, and once the water gets under that, and once the frost starts to move

again, you will find the hole becomes even bigger and worse than it was in the

beginning.

A couple of weeks ago, we had the Deputy Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation and the assistant deputy minister out there, who

drove over this

section of road. They know full well the need to have this piece

of roadway upgraded and repaved.

Mr. Speaker, part of the roadway, even though it is five

kilometres, two-and-a-half kilometres are worse than the other two-and-a-half.

People have been very reasonable. They have said to the

deputy minister: Look, Deputy Minister, if you could look after two-and-a-half

kilometres of roadway, the worst part, then that would make a big difference to

us and to our children.

Mr. Speaker, as those petitions come in, you find that the

names attached to them are not only from Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, and Upper,

Middle, and Lower Amherst Cove. You find that most of those names come from

people outside the area who drive over it almost on a daily basis as well,

either to go to work at Bonavista or to access government services such as the

hospital and the HRDC offices there, as well the fisheries offices.

You find that people who have only driven over the road once

or twice have seen firsthand and have come forward and presented petitions on

behalf of the students there.

I remember the school principal coming and standing in the

back of the room, along with the bus operators, and putting up the plea for the

school children. They are saying: This is the worst

section of road that we have

to drive over. We are asking you, Deputy Minister, if you would be kind enough

to allow at least the worst sections of roadway to be done.

It is wonderful when you stand up here and see the Minister

of Finance present a Budget and say that we are going to have a surplus in this

year's Budget - we are going to have a surplus the second time since back in

1950-something - but what price are we paying for it, I say to members opposite?

Is it so important to have a surplus in a budget and to leave work like this

undone, I say to members opposite?

Mr. Speaker, we have to maintain our infrastructure. While we

are happy to see roadwork announced for Labrador, and we are happy to see other

new roads being built, I think the commitment also has to be there to maintain

the roads and the inventory that we presently own. That is not being done. Most

of those roads were built in the days when inspections were something unheard

of. A lot of it was done almost as an election ploy. You could accuse

politicians, probably, of doing it for votes. You have enough money to do one

kilometre, and then the pressure comes that you need three kilometres done and

the payment is stretched and spread out to accommodate as many people as you

can, and today we are paying the price. Today we are paying the price for it.

When I hear the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture talk

about the $30-something million spent on a bypass road in his district -

MR. EFFORD: Access (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: An access road. A bypass road is what it

is, I say to the minister. Fair enough, the people need it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: The people travelling to Carbonear and

Harbour Grace need a suitable access. It needs to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I make the plea, listening to your

command to sit down, once again to ask government to look favourably on this

simple request so that those students and people's wishes might be adhered to.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I rise again today to continue my

introductory comments. On Thursday I gave the

preamble, on Friday I gave the

introduction, and sometime before the day is out I may get into the body of the

address.

I wanted to first of all commend my colleague, the Member for

Ferryland, for today almost persuading the President of Treasury Board to admit

that Bill 3 was a mistake on the part of the government. When she rose, I was

expecting her to say that the government had reconsidered and now they were

admitting that Bill 3, that draconian piece of legislation to force the nurses

back into their workplaces, would be reconsidered by the government and that

binding arbitration would be the order of the day.

I do believe, after a few more days of progressive

questioning by the Member for Ferryland, that the President of Treasury Board

will come around to the viewpoint that Bill 3 was a dire mistake, an abominable

mistake, and that the government - she will say, I hope, in the next few days -

has seen the light and that they will now treat nurses fairly.

We on this side have a commitment to collective bargaining,

and although people like Peter Fenwick and others may be saying that collective

bargaining is dead, I do believe that this government will in the next few days

be willing to try a new course to try to open up a reasonable dialogue based on

the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and the provisions that are

contained therein.

I wanted today to continue where I left off the other day. I

was talking about the process of government accountability. Government

accountability is a very large issue. I draw to members' attention that in this

Province we do not seem to have accountability legislation. Other provinces have

gone much further than we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the Province of

Alberta, for example, there is a piece of legislation called the Government

Accountability Act. We, in this Province, do not have any such piece of

legislation; however, the Auditor General has raised very serious questions

about the accountability proceedings and processes followed by this particular

government.

In the Province of Alberta it is mandatory that there be a

quarterly statement presented by the Minister of Finance, who they call a

Treasurer in Alberta, and that be presented within sixty days or thereabouts, at

the end of each fiscal quarter. In this Province we have no such accountability

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly comment on the Alberta

legislation for a moment because the Alberta legislation makes it mandatory that

the Treasurer, their President of Treasury Board - just a different name but the

same functions - that every quarter there be a comparison prepared between the

results budgeted for and the actual results of the expenditure allocations.

In that particular act, the act reads: This act and any other

made under it, operate notwithstanding any other act except the Alberta Bill of

Rights, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multicultural Act, the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, whether enacted before or after

commencement of this act, unless (inaudible) is declared in this act or any

other act.

In other words, the Government of Alberta is saying that the

government accountability act overrides all other legislation. Therefore,

government departments have to present actual documents and have to present

timely information to the Treasurer based on the requirements of this particular

piece of legislation.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we do not have that kind of

legislation in place. One of the things that the Progressive Conservative Party

is saying in Newfoundland and Labrador today is that we believe that government

accountability should be examined. The Auditor General has indicated that - and

I will get to that

part very shortly - but the government accountability

requires that the Minister of Finance or the President of Treasury Board make

sure that at the end of every quarter there is an up-to-date accurate piece of

information.

Let me, just for a moment, remind hon. members that in

Newfoundland and Labrador, where we do not have such

an act, as late as January

14 the Minister of Finance was putting out this kind of statement. He said, and

I will quote the entire paragraph: Through careful fiscal management, the

deficit in 1996-1997 was $18.6 million rather than the projected $45 million. In

1997-1998 it was $6.7 million rather than the projected $20 million. This year

we expect our deficit will rise to about $30 million, up about $20 million from

our original $10 million target. The combined deficit for the three-year period,

having been budgeted at $75 million, will come in at $55 million, which is an

improvement of $20 million over the period.

Mr. Speaker, what that is really saying is that the Minister

of Finance, as late as January 14, was saying that we would have a $30 million

deficit in this year. At that point in time the Minister of Finance either knew

or should have known about the windfall that would accrue from the federal

government.

When the federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, stood in

his place on February 16 and began to tell us the changes in the formula

calculation to effect equalization payments and the CHST, the Minister of

Finance, the Premier, and the Minister of Health and Community Services, all

said that they were not knowledgeable of the changes. A few days later, of

course, after the Prime Minister came down to Newfoundland and went to Corner

Brook and took the Premier aside for some discussion, the Premier then said,

well, as far as he was concerned, the issue was closed; because at that point in

time the Premier of this Province was told by the Prime Minister that indeed

there had been consultations all along.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) woodshed.

MR. H. HODDER: He was taken out to the woodshed. My

colleague, the Member for Ferryland who is very good with words, said that Prime

Minister Chrtien took the provincial minister and the Premier out to the

woodshed, gave him a lesson, read to him his documents that he himself had been

party to while he sat in the federal Cabinet, quoted him the federal policy and

said to him: Look, Brian, there is something wrong with your memory. You have

selective amnesia.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you know what I heard, Harvey? I heard

he came down, gave him a speech, and said: Here, read that and keep quiet.

MR. H. HODDER: While the Leader of the Opposition

graphically makes a presentation here in which he says that the Prime Minister

said to the Premier: Here is what you said; here is the federal policy. You know

that in 1993 this was part of our program. We have to do this to satisfy the 101

Liberals that we have in Ontario. We hope to get re-elected. We have got to

cater to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we examine that because,

you see, back in December what was the Prime Minister of Canada saying about

Atlantic Canada? In Maclean's , an

article that was printed in

Maclean's in December of 1998 talks about the attitude of the federal

Liberal Party toward Atlantic Canada. The

article was entitled: Slim Pickings.

The headline said: Once a Liberal stronghold, Atlantic Canada is now a wasteland

for the government.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the federal Liberal Party is no

longer committed to Atlantic Canada. The

article here says, and I quote: Laments

one worried Chrtien advisor, we are on the verge of writing off Atlantic Canada

for generations to come.

I will repeat that. A senior Liberal advisor to Prime

Minister Chrtien is quoted in Maclean's magazine as saying: We are on

the verge of writing off Atlantic Canada for generations to come.

That was in Maclean's magazine in December, about five

months ago. That tells the attitude of the federal government, how the Liberals

are now being so dominated by Central Canada that they have lost their

understanding and their knowledge of Atlantic Canada.

Let me quote another sentence from that same article. It

says: These days, a minister from Atlantic Canada finds his word nearly

weightless in a government with 127 of its 156 seats in Central Canada.

So the federal Liberal government, with 127 of their 156

seats now cloistered in Central Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support the (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: What I am saying is that the Liberals in

Ottawa have now lost all interest in Atlantic Canada and, as the

article says

here, it is now a wasteland for Liberalism.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in one of his

speeches here in this House, got up and said - and I remember him saying - how

it was so difficult to get the people now in control in Ottawa to understand

Newfoundland and Labrador; that you go up there and you have difficulty getting

appropriate hearings. You have to knock on doors twice as hard.

We know that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is

indeed a sincere Newfoundlander. We know that he understands how difficult it is

to get the federal government to understand Newfoundland's viewpoint.

Therefore this government on the other side of this House,

which prides itself on its Liberal roots, should be listening and paying

attention to what is being said in leading Canadian magazines, when leading

Canadian magazines are printing information quoting senior Chrtien advisors as

saying that Atlantic Canada is now a wasteland for Liberalism, and also saying

that we are on the verge of writing off Atlantic Canada for generations to come.

That is why, when the Premier of this Province went to Corner

Brook after the federal Budget, when the Premier said: I was not advised of the

changes in the calculation formulas -

MR. E. BYRNE: What did the Minister of Finance say?

MR. H. HODDER: Well, the Minister of Finance said that he

had been -

MR. E. BYRNE: Hoodwinked.

MR. H. HODDER: Hoodwinked.

MR. E. BYRNE: Laughable.

MR. H. HODDER: It was laughable.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Minister of Health.

MR. H. HODDER: The hon. Minister of Health and Community

Services said this was going to be a tragedy for health care in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. E. BYRNE: They all got taken to the woodshed, too,

didn't they? They must have.

MR. H. HODDER: They all got taken to the woodshed and

they were told emphatically: You had better listen to what we are saying because

we are in control, Atlantic Canada rules this country, and you should be

grateful for what you get.

So the Premier of this Province essentially goes to Ottawa

with his cap in his hand. That is what is happening in Canada today. Then we

come back and we have this big announcement during the election of what we are

going to do for health care, because suddenly we found out we would have some

extra money. The Premier stated he was going to have all this extra money, but

then when he looked at the changes in the federal income tax and what that

meant, and subtracted that, and when he looked at the other changes in the

formula, he found out that his $35 million was dribbling down. At some point the

real effect was more like $8 million or $9 million.

Mr. Speaker, therefore we do have a lack of sensitivity in

Ottawa to the nature of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the nature of Atlantic

Canada. They do not seem to understand that when we talk about health care in

this Province we are not a small area the size of Winnipeg, that we are spread

out over I suppose many thousands of miles of road, and with other factors that

would make the provision of services very difficult in a sparsely populated

province like Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people that live in all parts of this Province deserve

adequate health care, they deserve adequate educational services. It is

unfortunate that the group that are now in Ottawa seem to have lost faith with

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wanted to return now to the accountability act of the

Province of Alberta and to move into that, and to say that if we had that kind

of legislation we would not have all of this wishy-washy kind of uncertainty

that the Minister of Finance was getting on with last fall when he was saying at

some point that we were going to have $10 million in deficit, we were going to

have $30 million, $40 million.

We know that if we had not gotten the package from Ottawa of

$195 million or thereabouts that we would have had a massive deficit last year.

Because of equalization, of one-time payments, and because we also brought down

our money from the harmonization of HST and GST, and because we drew down the

Term 29 payments, all of these things combining together meant we were able to

get through the year with some semblance of order. It certainly does give us

some great concerns for the future when we have the uncertainty of the

equalization formula, we have expended all the money that we are supposed to get

through harmonization tax arrangements, and we have now drawn down the very last

dollar from the Term 29 money we arranged and was part of our entrance into

Confederation.

I want to, for the moment, make some reference to the Auditor

General's Report. It is not without significance that the Auditor General begins

her comments on page 7 with "Comments on Public Sector Accountability." Then she

gets into the whole framework of accountability. The Auditor General says, and I

will be quoting extensively, "Full accountability requires that Government, its

departments and agencies of the Crown, and Memorial University be held

accountable for their use of public money and the delivery of their programs."

She also says that "...government and its entities be held accountable for the

performance of its specific programs compared to their approved objectives."

The Auditor General also says on page 8 that "...the lack of

information being provided to the House of Assembly on Crown agencies which are

funded primarily by the public purse" is totally inadequate.

The Auditor General makes note to say: "While considerable

attention is given to the Government's budget, there is a lack of emphasis on

receiving and reviewing information on how agencies actually spend the monies

which were approved in the budget process."

The Auditor General makes this note: "Of the 92 entities

receiving government operating grants of $1.512 billion in 1996-97, only 4

entities receiving $163 million, had their reports tabled in the House of

Assembly."

What the Auditor General is saying is that many of these

Crown agencies - she mentions here ninety-two agencies, and only four of them

had their reports tabled in the House of Assembly. Let's have a look at those

who did not table their reports.

We look at the health care boards. I make note that this is

for 1996-1997. In 1996-1997 the health care boards in this Province spent $605

million. There were twenty such entries in that year. Not one single health care

board had its financial statements tabled in the House of Assembly, not one.

Let me go to the school boards and related entities.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask him where the Atkinson report is? The

Minister of Finance said he was going to release it in December. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: My colleague the Member for Kilbride, the

Leader of the Opposition, said we referred to the Atkinson report. It is crucial

that information be provided, and the Atkinson report says that - well, we

assume that it gives a financial accounting of what happened in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, by contrast let me talk about

what we on this side of the House believe in. This is our party policy. We say

that a PC government will release to the public, within thirty days of receiving

it, every government commissioned report by a panel, by a review committee, by a

task force, by a consultation process, or by a commission, and we will indicate

at that point our course of action on the recommendation. That is the policy of

this party on this side.

We have done a considerable lot of research on government

accountability. We believe that if the public pays for the report the public has

a right to know what is in the report and to know it on a timely basis. That is

what we on this side of the House believe is the direction this government

should be following.

It is totally unacceptable that a government should

commission a report like the Atkinson Report and then sit on it for week after

week, month after month, year after year. Now we find the Minister of Health

standing in her place several days ago and saying: Boys, it is now not relevant.

We have addressed many of the issues. How do we know? How does the public know

that the Atkinson report recommendations have been addressed when the report

itself has not been released?

Therefore, we are saying to the government that they should

look at what is happening in other provinces. In the Province of Alberta, if the

government pays for the report the government has the responsibility to release

it. In this Province we can only ask questions about why would a government

commission a report on something like the Western Newfoundland Hospital and then

say: No, we are going to sit on it? There is only one reason why you would sit

on it. It is too embarrassing to release it.

Let me continue on. There were twenty health care boards in

1996-1997 spending $605 million. Not a single one, not one health care board,

ever had their financial statements tabled in the House of Assembly, not one.

Then there were school boards. Before we had the

consolidation of twenty-seven school boards down to ten, there were thirty-nine

school boards and related entities in 1996-1997. They spent $479 million. I

would ask my colleague for Bonavista: How many school boards had their financial

statements tabled here in the House of Assembly? The answer is not one. Not one

school board had their financial statements tabled in the House of Assembly.

Thirty-nine such reports should have been tabled in the House but they were not

tabled by this government, in spite of the fact there was $479 million spent by

those school boards.

Memorial University spent $134 million in 1996-1997 and they

would only have one financial statement, one financial report. Was that

financial report received in this House? No. The answer is that they spent $134

million and not a single report was tabled in the House from Memorial

University.

Now, to community health boards. In 1996-1997 there were four

such entities and they spent $44 million. Again, not a single report was tabled

in the House of Assembly.

The colleges in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1996-1997 there

were five such colleges. They spent $47 million but not one report was tabled

here in the House of Assembly. There were other Crown agencies receiving

government operating grants. There were twenty-three of them spending $203

million. Of that number, four of the twenty-three had their reports tabled here

in the House of Assembly.

So what it means is that in 1996-1997 there were ninety-two

such agencies, and only four of them - spending $163 million - had their reports

tabled in the House of Assembly. What the Auditor General is saying - and the

whole

section here is on government accountability - is that there were no

reports tabled in the House of Assembly which related to $1.349 billion. How can

we say we have government accountability when we can spend $1.349 billion and

not have a single report tabled in the House of Assembly?

If we go back to the previous year, 1995-1996, there were

eighty-five entries receiving a government operating grant. Again, only four in

that year as well had the reports tabled here. Then the Auditor General goes

even further. Of the four that had the reports tabled, she said: Most of the end

reports which are tabled in the House of Assembly do not provide adequate

accountability information. What we have here is the Auditor General of this

Province - the chief financial watchdog for Newfoundland and Labrador, the

person who is going to be out there making sure government does what is right

according to the law and the legislation - saying that the information that is

provided is not adequate. What she says is the reports do not provide

information on the objectives of the entity or what was actually achieved during

the year.

The Auditor General also makes a point of the government's

need to develop a framework of accountability for all public sector entities in

the Province, including government departments, agencies of the Crown, and

Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we know that it was this

government or its predecessor that changed the laws of this Province that said

Memorial University would not have to table its information in this House.

One of the things that a PC government will do is they will

change the law that says that. Memorial University, if it wants to spend the

public's money, is going to have to give the Auditor General access to the

information. You are going to have to bring back the accountability that that

university should have for the expenditure of public dollars, and that the

reports should be tabled right in the House of Assembly. That is what this party

stands for, and we believe that that is the right direction. We believe it was a

great error when the government of Clyde Wells made the move to exclude the

university from having to be subject to the questions from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the government

that Memorial University should be included and should be subject to the

requirements of the Auditor General. When the PC party was in office they were

answerable to the Auditor General. This government changed the rules. We on this

side are saying that when we transpose ourselves to the other side we will make

sure that Memorial University will be subject to the same requirements as all

other agencies and that they will -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) change the House of Assembly

Act to exempt the Auditor General from (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Exactly. It was the government of Clyde

Wells in one December that changed the Memorial University Act. Before that the

Auditor General could potentially have gotten into the university, but the

Liberal government of Wells and Roberts brought legislation in here - I think it

was in 1995 - to change the law and to make sure that the university would not

be subject to the accountability provision that other institutions are in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General makes note, I should say,

that in June 1997 the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board was

directed by Cabinet to proceed with implementation of a new authority and

accountability framework for government departments.

It is interesting that that was a directive by Cabinet in

June 1997. It has taken until March 1999 and the Budget Speech for the Minister

of Finance to say that they are going to make some movement on it. It has taken

two years to move the thing from a concept stage to any kind of strategy for

implementation.

In the fall of 1997, for the first time, government

departments in Newfoundland and Labrador were required to submit a department

plan which addresses the strategic direction of the department.

The Auditor General does say that there is some movement

being made, very slowly, in October 1998. The Cabinet Secretariat issued

guidelines for departmental planning, 1999 to 2000, 2001 to 2002, to assist

departments with planning.

I do note that the Auditor General says that there is

supposed to be a progress plan for 1998-1999 to be completed by May 31. We are

wondering what the progress is. How far are we along in addressing the issues of

accountability for government departments?

I do admit that the Auditor General does say that there is

some gradual movement to making departments more accountable for their

expenditures. However, when she addresses the issues of Crown agencies, she then

comes and says: This certainly is not the case for Crown agencies.

While the Auditor General admits some progress towards

accountability regime for government departments is being considered as a

consequence of a Cabinet decision in June 1997 and one in October 1998, the

Auditor General also says there are approximately 156 Crown agencies in the

Province as of March 31, 1998, and of these eighty-five are required to prepare

an annual financial statement, while seventy-one were considered non-financial.

When it comes to Crown agencies the Auditor General is not a

very happy person. Of the eighty-five entities required to prepare annual

financial statements, twenty-nine were audited by the Auditor General's office.

The remaining fifty-six were audited by private-sector auditors.

Section 14 of the Auditor General Act requires all private

sector auditing firms to submit to the Auditor General's office a copy of the

audited financial statements and any management letters for all Crown agencies

for whom they audit.

It is interesting that as of December 11, 1998 - remember,

there were supposed to be fifty-six Crown agencies audited by private auditors -

the Auditor General herself had completed audits on twenty-nine of those Crown

agencies. That meant there would have been a fair number that would have been

audited by private auditors.

She says in her letter: As of December 11, 1998, the required

information had been received from private sector audits for thirty-eight of the

fifty-six entries. In other words, eighteen Crown agencies in this Province had

not submitted their audited statements for the previous year by December 11,

It is worthy to note the Crown agencies which had not sent in

their audited statement on a timely basis. I will admit it is possible that

between December 11, which was the deadline for this report, and today's date,

some of these agencies may indeed have submitted their audits. It is interesting

to note that they were then many months behind, because at the end of their

financial year it is a standard practice that it takes about three months to

complete an audit for some of those Crown agencies. It would take another three

months for the information to go through the follow-up procedures and for them

to be ready to be sent to the Auditor General. What we are saying is that as of

December 11 these eighteen Crown agencies were substantially behind in their

task of having their audits presented.

What Crown agencies did not have their audited statements in

on time? They were months behind. While I say some of them may, at this date,

actually have their audited statements in, we do not have that. We are only

quoting what the Auditor General said as of December 11.

I am going to read into the record the eighteen agencies

which did not have their audited statements presented to the Auditor General on

December 11. There were eighteen agencies that did not have it done. Central

Regional Health and Community Services Board did not have their audits done and

presented to the minister on December 11. Grenfell Regional Health Services

Board did not have their audit done and presented. The Health Labrador

Corporation did not have their audits done on time. This would have meant they

would have been five to six months behind. They should have had them in like

everybody else. They took the money, but they had not assured the Auditor

General that the money was spent in the manner that it should have been spent.

St. John's Nursing Home Board did not have their audits done and presented on or

before December 11. Western Regional Health and Community Services Board did not

have their audit done and presented to the minister on time. Then there are the

Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association, The College of the North

Atlantic and Marystown Shipyard Limited. Then, the Multi-Materials Stewardship

Board. I am not sure what department that would be under.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is under Environment.

MR. H. HODDER: That is under Environment, I learn from my

learned colleague over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: He is my colleague. To say "learned" here

has a context of a former Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, Municipal Assessment Agency Inc. did not have

its audit prepared on December 11. The Newco IV Corporation, I do not know what

they do. The shipyard?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is the one that is set up

temporarily. What was it for?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: For the shipyard. They did not have their

audit done. Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation did not have their audit

completed. Newfoundland Liquor Corporation did not have their audits completed

on December 11. Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited did not have their audits

completed on December 11. Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board did

not have their audits done. Vinland Industries -

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. H. HODDER: Vinland Industry, that is a limited

partnership, and Vinland Industries Limited. There are two Vinland Industries.

One is a limited partnership, the other one is simply called Vinland Industries

Limited.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that two?

MR. H. HODDER: That is two.

Finally, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission did not have their audits done on December 11.

Mr. Speaker, the significance is we are talking here about

accountability.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you want the efficient ministers now? In

Health, there are five (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I am coming along to that very shortly. I

say to my good colleague here, there are some paragraphs here that I want to

note as well.

There were eighteen Crown corporations which took public

money granted to them - they accepted the money - but when the audits were

supposed to be done by private auditors, the year had been over... The Auditor

General said it is reasonable to expect a private agency to complete an audit

within three months - give them three more months to do their copying, do their

processing internally - and by the end of six months they should have the

financial statements ready. We find that in December, nearly six months late,

these statements were not in.

Then the Auditor General goes on to make some other very

interesting comments. She says, "We reported last year and report again this

year that information is not being received from the private sector auditors on

a timely basis."

If she reported it the year before, then why wasn't there

something done about it? She says, "On average, audits are completed and the

auditor's reports signed within three months after year end."

Then she says she likes to allow another four months from the

audit report date and often she only gets the reports after aggressive telephone

calls, follow-up, written correspondence, looking for the audits. She says this

is not the way that things should go.

While the government might spin a good line on

accountability, it certainly does not seem to be borne out by the comments of

the Auditor General.

I want to read, as well - I will read a paragraph here. She

says, "For the years ending between 1 April 1997 and 30 April 1998, our Office

was responsible for auditing financial statements of 29 Crown entities. As at 11

December 1998, the audits of 4 of the 29 entities had not been completed for the

year ended 31 March 1998. These included:..."

I say to my good friend, the Member for Ferryland, if he is

doing his documentation now... He obviously is not. He is turned around and

talking to one of his colleagues. Under the Department of Development and Rural

Renewal - under that department - there were three entities that did not have

their audits completed.

They were Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation,

Farm Development Loan Board, and Fisheries Loan Board of Newfoundland. Under the

Department of Justice, the Office of the High Sheriff did not have the audit

completed.

I ask my colleague from Ferryland to pay particular

attention, because three Crown agencies reporting directly to the Department of

Development and Rural Renewal did not have their audits submitted by December

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that in addition to those eighteen?

MR. H. HODDER: That is in addition to those eighteen.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation did not have

their audits completed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Health has five not reported; ITT has five

Crown agencies not reported; Labour - one; Environment - one; Education -two;

Municipal Affairs - one; Fisheries - one; Professional Fish Harvesters Board did

not have their statement in, according to them. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Farm Development Loan Board, the

Fisheries Loan Board of Newfoundland.

I want to read it into the record, the paragraph of the

Auditor General relative to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal,

page 14, and I quote; I will read the entire paragraph, "As indicated, three of

the four entities are the responsibility of the Department of Development and

Rural Renewal. We note that the Department did not have timely financial

statements prepared for us to audit for these three entities last year either.

In addition to the reduced accountability by not having financial statements

prepared, the Department is not providing the financial information necessary

for Government to prepare the most accurate and complete financial statements

for inclusion in the Public Accounts."

Mr. Speaker, what that means is that the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal has not being doing his job. Because what we are

saying here is that the minister has been saying for two years in a row that the

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, the Farm Development Loan

Board, the Fisheries Loan Board of Newfoundland and Labrador, did not have the

documentation ready to present to the Auditor General on a timely basis.

All of that means, of course, is that the Auditor General is

unable to complete the job. It is incumbent upon the ministers of the Crown to

make sure that there is absolute cooperation with the Auditor General. That is

incumbent upon every minister.

Then the Auditor General goes into the management letters,

and she mentions weakness in the management letters. In essence, the Auditor

General is very concerned that the accountability provisions that are in

practice by this government need to have major changes.

While I note that there have been some directives following

from the June of 1997 Cabinet decisions, and more directives coming from the

October of 1998 decisions, we note the Auditor General still believes that there

is an inadequate accountability process in place in this Province.

I want to move on now to another area of accountability, and

that area deals with Special Warrants. Special Warrants are processed under the

Financial Administration Act, under

section 28. That act lays down the criteria

under which Special Warrants would ordinarily be issued.

Section 28 states that: The sum appropriated by the

Legislature for a continuing service is insufficient to meet requirements. If

there is no countervailing savings available and the necessity is urgent, the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may order that a Special Warrant be prepared for

the Lieutenant-Governor's signature.

The financial accountability act is very precise. It says, if

you want to have a Special Warrant, you have to have the documentation in place;

it has to be an emergency; there cannot be any countervailing monies available

from other sources; and you have no choice but to process the expenditure under

the emergency provisions under the Financial Administration Act, and it is the

responsibility of Cabinet to be satisfied that such an emergency does exist.

Mr. Speaker, for the Special Warrants issued by the

department for the year ending March 31, 1997, in that year there were thirteen

Special Warrants issued, totalling $88.6 million, of which $34.6 million were

issued in March of 1998 alone.

We admit, on this side of the House, that there will be

occasions when it will be necessary for government to use Special Warrants. In

that year, government felt there were thirteen such occasions.

Some years, government can get along without issuing very

many Special Warrants. For example, when Clyde Wells was Premier, in 1993, there

were seven Special Warrants for the year. In 1994, there were two Special

Warrants for the year, but in 1998 there were thirteen Special Warrants issued

totalling $88.6 million. That was the highest number of dollars ever included

under Special Warrant provisions.

The comment that I want to make is that the Auditor General

was not satisfied that all of that expenditure met the requirements of the

Financial Administration Act. For example, she said: Of the $88.6 million of

Special Warrants issued in 1997-1998, $30.9 million were issued although it

appears there was not an urgent requirement for the funding.

What that means is that the Auditor General is saying that

the Cabinet approved an expenditure of $88.6 million in thirteen Special

Warrants in 1997 but that she could not find adequate documentation to assure

her that an emergency existed under the requirements of the Financial

Administration Act for such an expenditure. That means that somebody in

government, some Cabinet minister, must have gone to Cabinet, must have prepared

a Cabinet paper, looking for money that was not necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I say to the Member for Humber East,

pretty soon he will be leaving as well. As a matter of fact, after the next

election he is going to be leaving p