March 23, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 5

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Development and Rural

Renewal.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform hon.

members of a special event that is under way in St. John's today, and continues tomorrow.

I am referring to the "Y Entrepreneurship conference."

This conference is a joint effort of the YM-YWCA Enterprise Centre and

the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, as part of its mandate to foster the

development of small businesses.

The conference is designed for those who want to start their own

business, especially young people. They are people who recognize that the best

opportunities are the ones we create ourselves. They may have a good idea for a business,

but want additional information or assistance to help them get that business of the

ground.

The conference will help them do that. The agenda sessions are devoted

to such topics as researching a business concept, developing a sound business plan,

understanding how marketing works, the basics of financial statements, and financing

options for starting a business.

Mr. Speaker, through business speakers, group work and other

activities, this high-energy conference will take participants through all the steps

required to produce a top-notch business plan. It will help them empower aspiring

entrepreneurs to get their business idea kick-started.

Newfoundland Labrador is a great place to do business, and the

Department of Development and Rural Renewal is proud to be a partner in stimulating

economic growth and job creation in the Province.

Close to 100 people have registered for the two-day conference, being

held at the Battery Hotel.

I commend the staff of the Y Enterprise Centre and the Avalon Region of

my department for helping prepare people to start up and operate their own small business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I stand today to compliment the entrepreneurs in this Province who have

survived and succeeded in spite of government legislated regimes and regulatory regimes.

The reality is that most entrepreneurs in the first year of business

find it difficult for a number of reasons: not enough marketing assistance being provided;

not enough research and development being provided.

I compliment the Y Enterprise Centre for continuing to hold this

special event. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, I hope. Most of the

money is coming from the federal government, with some coming from the provincial

government.

I will say to the minister that your department is temporarily yours,

that the Premier has other designs, Sir, for Mr. Efford, and that department may not be in

your hands very long, Sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to support the efforts to develop an entrepreneurial

spirit and provide some training to young people in particular, with the idea of starting

their own businesses. Unfortunately, once people take up that job there is very little

assistance for small businesses in this Province and that is reflected in the incomes that

self-employed people have as compared to people in employment. So I would encourage young

people (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and also encourage government to start more programs.

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

Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to take this opportunity to provide the Members of the

House of Assembly with some of the details concerning the Agriculture Income Disaster

Assistance Program. This federal-provincial program is designed to provide assistance to

farmers who face dramatic declines in net income as a result of factors beyond their

control and for which existing programs cannot provide assurance of continuing the farm

business. Up to $1.5 million will be spent over the next two years, with a contribution by

the federal government of $600,000.

Mr. Speaker, this program will be implemented over two years and is

open to all bona fide farmers. To be eligible for assistance, farm income must fall below

70 per cent of the average income for the previous three years. Farm income will be based

on income tax returns, and take all farm income sources into consideration. This whole

farm program is designed to be both compatible and complementary to existing

federal-provincial safety net programs, which include the National Income Stabilization

Account and Crop Insurance programs.

The NISA program is designed to help stabilize the net incomes of farm

operations across Canada, through a sharing of risk with producers. The program allows

producers to make limited deposits to individual NISA accounts and provides a certain

level of matching funds from both federal and provincial governments. Producers own these

accounts and all the funds contained in them, including the government share.

These funds can be withdrawn if triggered by either lower than average

incomes or a minimum income threshold. Upon retirement from agriculture, producers can

withdraw any remaining funds in their accounts.

Participation in the NISA program in Newfoundland and Labrador has

increased over the last few years with eighty-seven producers holding accounts, up over an

average of sixty to seventy producers in the recent past. A concentrated effort by the

Agriculture Branch to educate producers on the benefits of the program seems to have

revitalized interest in this program. Newfoundland and Labrador farmers now have about $1

million on deposit with the NISA program.

Mr. Speaker, additionally, crop insurance is offered to vegetable

farmers to provide a comprehensive all-risk crop insurance, which in years of crop losses

will provide compensation to help minimize the financial loss due to crop failure. This

crop insurance is free to all farmers that apply and covers up to 60 per cent of the crop

failure.

Our government encourages those farmers affected, to participate in the

Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance Program. The details of the program will be

announced over the coming weeks and applications will be available in all the regional

offices by the end of March.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a series of workshops throughout the

Province in April and May to assist staff and producers in participating in the program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for forwarding this

statement to me in advance.

This is a good program and it obviously has merit. If the minister is

serious about the agrifood industry, his department would be doing more to ensure the

industry locally is competing on a level playing field.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: For example, we import 90 per cent of what we consume

in this Province, largely because we have not encouraged the industry to grow properly

over time. The minister and his department should begin by investing in cold storage

facilities for our root crops. This would add to production and increase growth, which

means more jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know there has been a difficult time working out a program for the

Newfoundland farmers who have suffered from crop loses and weren't covered by insurance.

I'm glad to see that this is finally taking place.

Some of the other programs that are there, such as the NISA program,

are available if you have income to put into it. What we really have to do, Mr. Speaker,

is aggressively pursue on all fronts an agricultural strategy that is going to result in

higher incomes and more food being produced locally.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of the House and all

members of the general public to skip a lunch tomorrow, March 24, and donate the money

that they would have spent to the St. John's School Lunch Association.

This is the second annual SKIP-a-LUNCH event held by The School Lunch

Association to raise awareness of the issue of child poverty and its affect on children's

education, and to raise funds in support of the Hot Lunch Program operated by the

association in city schools.

This event is endorsed by the hon. Premier and Mrs. Tobin, the entire

Liberal caucus, the Department of Education, and many prominent figures from political,

business, arts, entertainment and media communities. I am well aware that hon. members

opposite endorse this program as well.

Founded in 1989 by a small committee of individuals who recognized the

correlation between hunger and a child's ability to learn, The School Lunch Association

helps children take full advantage of their educational opportunities by operating a

non-stigmatizing program that provides hot, nutritious lunches to children at school,

regardless of their families' ability to pay. The organization is funded by corporate and

community donations, the sale of meals in schools and 25 per cent of its budget comes from

the Department of Education, in the form of a grant, which is currently $75,000 annually.

There are children in our city for whom, by necessity, skipping lunch

is a daily reality. I encourage everyone to SKIP-a-LUNCH tomorrow, March 24, so that our

children won't have too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend the St. John's

Lunch Association for their efforts to address this very worthwhile cause. I have seen

firsthand the affects of children coming to school hungry. I only wish that individuals

would not have to be going around fundraising, that this could be taken care of with good,

solid government programs to deal with this specific issue. I do not hesitate to endorse

the SKIP-a-LUNCH. We have to certainly support these things because, again, hungry kids in

school do not learn properly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too commend the SKIP-a-LUNCH program. I think it is worthwhile.

However, there are many people, many children across this Province in all areas, who are

going to school hungry each day. In order for this program to be effective it has to be a

universal program that is in place throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: I might say to the other side of the House which is

heckling that it is too bad that their social conscience was not in play when they were

determining the amount of increase they were going to give to the seniors in this

Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If this Province had an accountability act like other provinces - I am

going to sit and wait for the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. If our

Province, this government, had put in place an accountability act like ones that are in

place in other provinces, such as Alberta, which demands full and honest reporting of the

Province's fiscal situation on a quarterly basis, the people of this Province would have

known this fall or last fall what was confirmed, what was not confirmed, and what

government refused to confirm until yesterday: that the Province did not have a $55

million deficit, as the minister said one week; we did not have an $85 million deficit, as

the minister said last week; we did not have a $40 million deficit when the fall came, or

a $30 million dollar deficit as the minister said in January; but, in fact, that the

budgetary surplus was known by this government in October.

The question is, why did -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bonavista North, when you are

the House Leader you can stand and interrupt. Right now I am asking the Minister of

Finance a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. TULK: For the information of the hon. gentleman, any member of

this House can stand and interrupt any time they like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The question is: Why did the Premier and the minister blatantly - and I

say blatantly - hide the true budget numbers from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

last fall, and withhold emergency health care funding despite desperate conditions for

four months in order to save this information to further exploit and expedite their own

political agenda? That is the question that must be answered today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition knows that what he just said is a pile of nonsense.

The government cannot say with any certainty before year end what

exactly the figures are. The reason is that we get about fifteen different updates on

equalization entitlements and personal income tax, corporate income tax. We get them all

through the year.

It is customary, and it is a custom I frankly dislike, at mid-year to

give a report of what direction the Province is headed. In any given time those will be up

and those will down, your monitoring expenditures; government takes corrective action.

The government knew, frankly, in January, when we got first reports,

that our position at year-end probably would result in a surplus. We were getting some

indications toward the end of January that the amount would be greater. We did not know

what exactly the amount would be, and we are always concerned that there might be downward

fluctuations as well, so we do the prudent thing. We do not do like the hon. member does:

one week claim a deficit of $60 million, next month claim a deficit of $150 million.

If we listen to the hon. member, or if we did what the hon. member

suggests, we would be aping him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with that in a

second, because his own numbers confirm what I said last fall. In fact, will he confirm

that the department was advised in October by the federal government that they would be in

receipt of an additional $128 million; in October, previous to your statements?

We were told yesterday by officials from the Department of Finance that

early in October the Department of Finance and government was advised that the budgetary

figures from federal transfers would be up by at least $128 million. Will he confirm that

took place in October, and when he stood in his place and alluded that there would be a

$40 million deficit that he was not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

the truth to the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that the statements he just made are totally

unparliamentary and he has to withdraw them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if I have made an unparliamentary remark

I certainly withdraw it.

Let me rephrase the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked his question.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. I

heard a lot of commentary.

Let me say to the hon. member, and repeat what I said in answer to his

first question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: We will probably receive an update in June or July as to

what they expect the amount would be, what it might be, what it will be, what it... We

receive updates all the time.

What the position was in October, I, frankly, do not remember. I can

tell the hon. member that at any given point during the year the picture is incomplete.

The first solid news we had that we might have a surplus at year-end was towards the end

of January. We received an update in February, we received an update on Budget night, and

the next day it had gone up again.

I say to the hon. member that if his idea of running a government is to

run out and make public estimates that the federal government gives him on a virtual

monthly basis, he will have the Province in a panic very quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not sure about a panic, but at least the people

of the Province would get some accountability and truth from a government, which they have

come to expect. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Budget proves that this Province would have

had a massive deficit if not for the gift from God, from Ottawa. In fact, his own

numbers...

He just alluded and said that my numbers were incorrect. Last year's

statements, in his Budget statement, clearly show that this government overspent last year

by $163 million. So, the numbers that we were putting out were correct, Minister; they

were not false. The reality was that they were based upon your own Budget estimates, not

our Budget estimates; yours, Sir.

The question is, that while confirming this on page 7 of the document,

will you stand today and do what is required and apologize to the people of the Province

for not putting health care on his priority list, for his overspending; despite, when he

stood here last year and said that he could not find another $10 million, he knew that he

had an additional - at least - $128 million last October, and told the people that he did

not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Stand and apologize, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will apologize. I will apologize

that, in bringing in a Budget, people have to listen to the tripe and the questions that

the hon. member gets up on. I think the public deserves an apology for certain nonsense

the hon. member is getting on with.

Mr. Speaker, now that I listen to him about all this stuff about the

deficits last fall, that wasn't me who said it; that was him who said it. If I recall - I

have to dig out the news release - I invite the press to. He was the one who was getting

on all last fall: The deficit is this; it is not $50 million, it is $30 million, it is

$100 million.

The hon. member is going down a very dangerous path; because if there

is one thing I have avoided doing it is speculating about what the position will be at

year-end inasmuch as we can. We try to give people a reasonable picture.

Let me answer the hon. member's question directly. Yes, we spent more.

We said yesterday in the Budget, if he read it or if he listened to it, or if he certainly

had occasion to refer to it since -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Exactly. We would have been precisely on budget. We

would have been within about $5 million to $7 million of budget.

What we choose to do - we said yesterday in the Budget, if the hon.

member remembers, there was a Budget deficit forecast of $10 million. Our net increase in

revenues was $205 million. That leaves $195 million to be accounted for. We were $6

million down in revenues on current account. That gets you down to about $188.9 million.

We deferred $51 million, which included $52 million of hydro revenues, which gets you down

to $137.9 million. Our surplus was $4.3 million and we detailed in the Budget the $133

million. Forty-five million of that was spent to retire debt, a good investment of the

Province. Another $41 million of that went to pre-pay expenses, and the other amounts were

accounted for in the Budget as well. They are all listed.

As far as what the government did with the money, it is clearly set

out. People see it. We invested $31.7 million. That is it. We were dead on the Budget.

What we have done is we have deferred money to future years which is a prudent and wise

thing to do. We prepaid expenses that could easily have been put to next year rather than

taking it this year. Mr. Speaker, the member's problem is that he does not understand how

to manage an economy and that is what is motivating these questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is pretty clear that had they not received the

additional $180 million they were not anticipating, this government would be standing here

today trying to explain to people how their mismanagement, their spending sprees, went off

the rails and that the federal government took them out of hot water. That is what is

pretty clear!

Let me ask him this. The government spin doctors are telling people

this is a health care budget. When you subtract the $40 million that has gone merely to

cover past debt that the boards had to build up just to provide basic services, the

reality is this. When you add it all up, where is the essential money that goes to address

wait list backlogs, cancelled procedures, patients on stretchers, nurse, doctor and health

care burnout, that are plaguing the system more now than ever, I say to the minister?

Won't you admit that you have done essentially nothing to address the

crisis in front-line health care? We will be hearing more of the stories that this Member

for Ferryland has brought to this House to shame that government into doing something.

Won't you admit that over the next year we will be hearing even more of that coming to

this Legislature, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is spouting pure

argumentation that has no basis in logic or thought.

Now let me ask him this. We spent all this money. Isn't this terrible?

He is citing shortages in hospitals, waiting time and so on. So let me ask him: Would he

have not spent the $40 million to alleviate the debt in the regional health care boards?

Would he not have spent $21 million on equipment for hospitals? In the same breath that he

says it is terrible, that government is not managing the hospital system properly, he is

faulting us for funding it. We have added $45 million to the hospital base budget.

The hon. member is just trying to be incendiary in this House and he is

losing sight of all the important and wonderful things in this Budget. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, let me ask him: What would he not do? Would he not fund an additional $4.1

million to recruit salaried physicians? Would he not increase the dispensing fee? Would he

not implement the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act? Would he not introduce a

tobacco reduction strategy? If the member wants to talk about health, look at what we have

done, and don't stand in his place and complain that there are problems in the system and

then fault us for spending money to cure the very things he refers to. Pure hypocrisy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what I am not losing sight of is that

this government, these ministers, are starting to believe their own malarkey. That is what

is happening here!

The reality is this. Yesterday the minister stood in his place and said

- when he said last year the government would suffer financial consequences, we talked

about how the government would suffer financial consequences, that the Term 29 award was

over, there would be declining compensation, actual dollars in revenue, coming in from HST

compensation funds.

We now know that we were right. This year government has chosen four

more one-time budgetary measures that it will not have next year: a greater Hydro

dividend, a dividend from the Housing Corporation, an extra dividend from the Liquor

Corporation, and a transfer from the sinking fund. Will the minister admit that his

statements about no new taxes in this Budget are not quite so accurate, since Hydro,

Housing and the Liquor Corporation will have to find new ways to finance the dollars that

the finance department has just shuffled from their accounts into their revenue? It is all

smoke and mirrors, isn't it, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The dividends from Hydro

are not one time. They are recurring dividends that come in each year. We did not take

them into revenue because frankly we did not need them this year and we deferred them to a

time when we would need them.

Secondly, none of the things that he mentioned will result in

increases. The amount taken from Hydro will not result in increased electricity prices for

consumers; neither will liquor fees go up because we are taking money. Part of that $5

million is cash on hand that we are taking. Neither will housing go up, Mr. Speaker. The

hon. member is flopping about trying to find something to criticize in what is a superb

and magnificent budget, and certainly better than any of his predecessors were ever able

to bring into this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, talk about deceit. During the election

campaign public service pensioners were promised by this government, by this Premier, that

they would pay attention to their concerns once they were elected. They were led to

believe that there would be a serious readjustment with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That's right. There was a gentleman who said last

week in this House: Mr. Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - you laid your hand on my shoulder and you said that

it would be taken care of.

Will the Premier or will the Minister of Finance confirm -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

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

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that his new seniors benefit will

put about $3.86 a week into the pockets of the poorer seniors, which will only represent

about 10 per cent to 15 per cent of those poor seniors, and do little or nothing for most

of the public service pensioners who have had no raise in benefits since 1989? Will he

admit that he sold out the Province's public service pensioners, and what he said to them

during the election is not what he delivered on in this Budget yesterday, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, neither the Premier or any member of this

government made any promises to public servants. Quite the opposite. We had said we are

prepared to negotiate indexing at the table and we are. If employees of this government

are prepared to pay for indexation, they can have it. What people should expect out of a

pension plan is the benefit they paid for, and not more than that.

Let me say that we did deliver on our promise. We promised that we

would look at an equitable program for seniors that benefited not only retired public

servants, but every person in the Province. If the hon. member's idea of governing in the

best interest of the people of the Province is to confer special privileges on people who

work for government, then I have to say we disagree with him. That is wrong in point of

principle. It is wrong in point of equity to use general taxpayers' revenues to confer a

benefit on a small group of people, including public service pensioners.

Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that government pensioners will

benefit to exactly the same extent, in exactly the same manner, as every other retired

senior in this Province. That is the way it should be.

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, or the acting minister, or anybody who cares to respond. Minister, yesterday in

the Budget it was revealed that $40 million was to retire debt accumulated prior to 1998

by the hospital boards around this Province.

Just prior to February 9 election there was an announcement that they

would retire the debt from the 1998-1999 year, of which that $20 million announcement by

the minister indicated $15 million would go to retire that debt, plus $10 million they had

already earmarked. There was a $25 million deficit announced back in January.

Where is the money that was promised during the election, I ask the

minister? Will you tell this House how that extra $15 million that is here in the Budget

this year for the upcoming fiscal year is going to enable boards in this Province to

provide the same level of service as we had last year when they overspent their budgets by

$25 million?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. Opposition House Leader that I do not know if he

clearly understands or incorrectly explained -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: No. Look, I say the hon. Opposition House Leader asks an

intelligent question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: I am delighted to have one to deal with. All I am asking

him - and I am asking him because I want to make sure he understands it. We will answer

whatever questions.

What the government announced yesterday was that we were paying off the

debt accumulated to March 1998. That is $40 million, Mr. Speaker. What we said in January

was that we would fund an additional $15 million to the institutions' base budget.

The hon. member may know that the institutions get in the vicinity of

$600 million to $700 million. I do not have the exact figure with me. In 1996, our first

year, we gave them an additional $10 million and $20 million, and we announced the

additional $15 million. That is a total of $45 million for their operating budgets. We did

not say that the $15 million we announced in January would go to retire any debt. I think

he understands that distinction.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand it quite well. I understand the Premier huddling all the

health care people out there in a room out in the lobby, and telling them that: We are

overspent, this year's budget, by $25 million. The Minister of Health said: We held back

$10 million we did not earmark to those boards. We are going to use that, and we are going

to use another $15 million out of that new $20 million to help them meet their overruns

for this year. The other $5 million is going to go for equipment.

It is loud and clear to me, Minister. Apparently you are confused on

the money that is being spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have asked the question already. If you want me to

ask the question again I will. I will ask it again. Minister, how is $50 million extra

this year, going into a $700 million facilities budget around this Province, going to give

us the same level of service this upcoming year as we got last year, when we overspent by

$25 million last year? How is this going to fix the problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, we have varying boards around this Island

who manage their affairs with varying degrees of ability. The $40 million has cleared up

the debt to March 1998 of last year. Okay? The additional money that was voted in the

current year's Budget 1998-1999, before we get into the new fiscal year, had $10 million

to be distributed among the boards. The minister waited on doing that because we did an

in-depth financial review of the institutions.

We announced another $15 million in January. The debt that the member

is referring to is the current year's debt. We are not paying off all the debt of the

boards, we are paying out to the end of March 1998. Now some of these boards, frankly,

should and will do a better job of managing their affairs. Of the money we provided, of

the $20 million, $21 million, $6 million of it is for better financial reporting

information systems within the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, the member is confusing two things. The debt we paid off

is not in the current year, it is in prior years. Part of the money will be distributed

among the boards in accordance with their needs and their ability to provide services.

That is what the $25 million will go to.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, not at all. That is not what Mr. Peddle said, how he thanked them,

that they are overspending $25 million this year and we are glad to have that $25 million,

that $10 million and $15 million. It will really help the process.

I want to say this to the minister. Last week as I was leaving the

Health Sciences Centre at 9:30 in the night I was stopped by an elderly man who received a

call the day before to tell him and his wife to come in. They said: We have a bed now

available for you. They rose and they drove for three hours from Bonavista Bay, got to the

Health Sciences at 12:00. As I was going to the hospital that night at 9:30 they stopped

me - and several other people before I got to the door - but this one individual one told

me they were waiting all day long. The bed they were called in for is not there. I do not

know if they ever got a bed that night or afterwards.

I am asking the minister this. Those problems are going on every single

day in hospitals here, and I have names to go with them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister: Is that any way to treat

the sick and elderly? Where in this Budget is there provision to provide beds for such

people whose medical experts have determined need surgery or other forms of treatment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me explain something to the hon. member. The $40 million that we

are providing to pay off the debt, if you think about it, has a very beneficial effect.

All these institutions are paying interest on that debt. When we pay off that $40 million

worth of debt that will free up operating funds within the institution that is now being

used to carry overdrafts and pay, in some cases, substantial amounts of interest on it.

Just let me say this to the hon. member. What I find interesting about

his position, and that of his Leader, is he is detailing a particular health care problem.

I accept it, and I understand that at times the health care system has problems coping

with the demands placed on it. It varies from time to time and we try to deal with it.

We have put money in there. We have put an additional $25 million this

year over last just in their operating budgets alone: the $10 million we announced in last

year's budget plus $15 million. In the last two years it has been increased by $45

million. I mean, that is very substantial on a budget of $600 million to $700 million.

What I find most intriguing about the Opposition's questions here today

is that his Leader is attacking us for spending money on the health care system, and the

health critic is getting up and criticizing us for not spending enough. I do not mind

answering questions, but I would like them to at least get together beforehand and give us

a cohesive, coherent position for us to answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the Minister of Finance's version of it. There is another

version. It is called the true version, I say to the minister! That is the true version!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) it is not my version of it, it is Hansard's

version of it.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister that there are people waiting

almost a year to see medical specialists in certain specialty areas. Almost a year in

several I'm aware of, specialty areas you can't see a doctor.

It is a common occurrence to see people lined up - and anybody who

wants to visit there, do so - in emergency departments here in the City. People want their

health care needs addressed and improved. During this past election campaign they were

given hope and promise that would happen. Even the Premier said the Minister of Health is

a nurse -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: His Deputy Minister is a nurse. Every night he goes

home to a nurse. He tells nurses: Trust us, we will handle your concerns. During this

campaign it was told that there was $40 million on February 6 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister this. In the Canada Health

and Social Transfer, why is your Budget only showing $4.4 billion new dollars over last

year under the Canada Health and Social Transfer? Where in this Budget are those problems

and backlogs, that they promised would be met, being met?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We never said there would be $40 million available under the CHST.

Quite the opposite. The hon. member must surely have heard the federal Budget and the

pronouncements of myself and the Minister of Health and our colleagues here who are

concerned (pause in tape) $15 million. As the hon. member says, it is far less than that.

In fact, we have made it very clear for well over a month what the

unfortunate circumstances to the Province were as a result of changes in the CHST and we

are not very happy about it. Nevertheless, and I answered the question in the House last

week, we intend to go on and maintain a constructive relationship with the federal

government.

Now he mentioned specifically what is happening with physicians, and

there are physician shortages. I am sorry my colleague is not here. The recruitment

efforts of the Department of Health are paying off. My recollection is that since this

year they have recruited something in the order of twenty or so physicians. If the hon.

member looks at the Budget details, we have also devoted $4.1 million to recruit another

thirty-five. We are aware that there are physician shortages. This is what we are doing to

answer it.

Having said that, there may never come a day when everybody will be

able to see a physician right away. I agree with him that there are some circumstances and

some specialities where there is a waiting list. We are in a very competitive environment

in North America, trying to obtain specialists. We are spending money his leader does not

want us to spend on the health care system. I'm sorry, I agree with him. I think we are

making the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm telling you the Minister of Finance should check with the Premier

to make sure they are singing out of the one page in a hymn book. That is what I should

tell him, and I would give him a copy to prove that.

Minister, mental health in this Province is in a crisis. Out on the

West Coast of this Province there were no psychiatrists, and then there was only one to

serve the whole West Coast. I'm sure the minister's riding is very much aware of that.

Young children cannot get the psychiatric care they need. There is a

long waiting list and they have been left there with only seven psychiatric beds here at

the Janeway. The people are being denied care. We have reached unprecedented levels on

waiting lists for cardiac surgery in the history of our Province, I say to the minister,

and this Budget addresses none of those concerns.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his supplementary quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister this. Where is the solution?

What is your solution to the concerns that we have expressed here today? What solution

does government have? The Budget has not provided it. We would like to hear it.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our solution is to do what the hon. member suggests, and that is to

provide more money in the Budget. We are providing another $15 million in base operating

budgets, another $20 million-odd in equipment. That is for reasons, as I have said, almost

a $100 million extra to the health care system this year over two years ago. That is not

including the other initiatives. We mentioned the physicians and the new hospitals we are

building around the Province.

These are all necessary, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with him. I do not

think that you could ever find enough money to completely satisfy all demands in the

health care system. We agree, it is our priority, it is the public's priority and to the

extent we can find and devote money to it we have been doing it. We believe we are doing

it successfully. If he does not believe us he should check the election results on

February 9.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Education. A little more than five months away from the start of the 1999 school year the

education system in many parts of this Province is in chaos with parents, students and

stakeholders of all natures not sure what is going to be going on, where they are going,

what schools will be closing, and the quality of programming.

In this context the people were looking to this year's Budget to do

something to address the chaos by holding a line on teacher allocations, at least for this

difficult transitional year. We have seen, or I saw yesterday, the government's commitment

to education, and it is 182 fewer teachers. Why? Why did this government back away from

its commitment to make education a priority in this year's Budget? Why is it cutting so

many teachers when it needs more to take care of the chaos that is going to be there for

us in this coming school year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the hon. member's assertion that

this government has contributed to the chaos in the education system, we have in fact

reinvested $11.8 million by keeping in the system an additional 238 teachers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the reality of today in this Province is

that we have a severe declining enrolment in our student population. In fact, we are

seeing 4 per cent of our student population decline on an annual basis. If we were to

follow the formula which has existed in this Province, 418 teachers would have come out of

the system.

We recognize as a government that we are going through education

reform. We realize we have to work with the school boards. We have to work with the NLTA.

We want to make sure that at the end of the day we have a good, sound education system. We

have done that, and what we are doing is ensuring that we have enough teachers in the

system to deal with the student population.

We have not taken down the number of teachers according to the student

population decline. If we had, today maybe the hon. member could stand and speak to the

fact that there is declining student enrolment and not enough teachers. We have kept 238

in there instead of taking out 418.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with statutory requirement, I am pleased to table the

annual report of the Pippy Park Commission for the year ending March 31, 1998.

I am also pleased to present, for the benefit of the House, the

exemptions under the Public Tender Act for the months of October, November and December,

1998, and also for the month of January, 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the

Speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I am pleased to present the report of the

Select Committee as follows:

To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the Honourable A.M. House, C.M.,

M.D., LL.D, FRCPC. May it please Your Honour: We, the Commons of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in legislative session assembled, beg to thank Your Honour for the Gracious

Speech which Your Honour has addressed to this House.

I have signed it, as well as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,

and the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received, debate to follow on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 32.4 of the Auditor

General's Act, 1991, I hereby table the audit and financial statements of the Office of

the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 998.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals who

are concerned about the fact that provincial government retirees have not received an

increase to their pension benefits in ten years.

This is the same petition that has been presented before, and

yesterday's Budget did not give them a pension increase either. What it did was ignore the

requirement of government, in fairness to the pensioners, to address the issue of whether

or not the government will continue to bring pensioners' benefits up to the level that

they had a legitimate expectation to receive in the past when a general public sector wage

increase was devised.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done instead is ignore that. The minister

takes the position in this House, as he did during Question Period, that they have no

intention of treating the public service pensioners fairly. This is not acceptable to the

public service pensioners of this Province. It is a clear message that government does not

care that throughout the whole period of the seventies and eighties, when these increases

were adopted, that this became a method of dealing with pensions.

The minister continues to say that they are only getting what they paid

for. That is a very simplistic response to a series of actions by government over a period

of years: first of all, in ensuring that pensions are never on the bargaining table by

refusing to negotiate them; secondly, by providing this increase on an ongoing basis over

the years and leading pensioners into the expectation that they did not have to do

anything about it because the increases were coming as a matter of course.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the government introducing the Low

Income Seniors' Benefit. The Low Income Seniors' Benefit is obviously necessary when the

minister himself indicates that 34,000 - 55 per cent - of the seniors in this Province

will benefit from the seniors benefit. It is pretty obvious what a financial state the

seniors are in this Province, over 65, when 34,000 of them will benefit as being in the

$12,000-or-less family income bracket.

I do not have a problem with granting a Low Income Seniors' Benefit. It

will improve the lot of a significant number of poor people in this Province, but it does

not address the needs of the public service pensioners. It does not use any creativity

whatsoever in doing that, such as was evident in Nova Scotia when they had to make changes

to the hospital benefit plan for retired hospital workers. They used a very creative

solution within that pension plan to ensure benefits to the lower end of the scale. Using

a formula based on the old age supplement numbers, they were able to bring about

substantial increases to those who are at the low end without providing a top-up to people

who were on the other end of the scale, earning considerable amounts of money in pensions.

Mr. Speaker, this government has failed its own employees, its former

employees. It has failed them just as it has failed the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Association to date, just as it has to date failed the nurses of this Province who, within

twenty-four hours, unless government meets their demands, will be forced on the street

trying to fight for better health care for the citizens of this Province and a fair deal

from this government.

These pensioners need the protection of an increase in their pension

benefits and not have to wait until they are sixty-five to receive this Low Income

Seniors' Benefit as a matter of general course. There are too many of them who are not

sixty-five, it will not go near, and will not have any opportunity to benefit from this

low income seniors program. Nothing at all, not one red cent, has been allocated to solve

that problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi. Yesterday we note that the Minister of Finance, in his Budget Speech, did

make an initial step. We note that the Low Income Seniors' Benefit is just that; it is a

beginning.

We note that the people will not be eligible to access this particular

Low Income Seniors' Benefit until they reach age sixty-five, and the family income has to

be less than $12,000. That means that the family would have to be, shall we say - in

normal circumstances, families at that stage would be getting their old age pension, their

old age supplements, and the aggregate of all of that, for a man and his wife, would have

to be less than $12,000 for them to be able to get the maximum of $200.

We recognize that as a beginning; however, that is not going to satisfy

the wishes of the retired public servants who have been promised new initiatives by the

Premier.

Just a few days ago when we were here in the House - and we certainly

do not, on this side, condone interruptions to the decorum of the House - we did note that

a gentleman did stand in the gallery and, out of frustration, directed a comment to the

Premier of the Province in which he said: The Premier placed his hand on my shoulder and

said, we will look after you when the election is over.

We bring that gentleman's commentary to the floor of the House this

afternoon. We say to the government, certainly that was the message that the seniors, the

retired public servants that I talked to, had received from government during the

election. They fully expected, in the Budget Speech yesterday, for there to be some

delivery to them by the Premier. We know that they were participating aggressively in the

election process and they were persuaded, either through direct or indirect commentary by

government and the leadership of the government, to discontinue their participation in the

election by stopping their protest, by stopping calling rallies, and these kinds of

things, in efforts to put forward their opinion. They said: If we can be guaranteed that

we can have sensible and meaningful negotiations with government, we will desist from

participating directly in the election process.

So the Premier gave a commitment. When this was acknowledged, the

Premier did nothing afterwards to say: No, that is not what I meant.

Therefore, these people certainly knew that there had been a commitment

made by the Premier and his government to them.

Mr. Speaker, as noted by my colleague as well, during the 1970s and

1980s, the idea of indexing pensions was not on the bargaining table for retired public

servants. It just was not there. In fact, very few of the collective bargaining units were

able to talk of pensions at all because it had never been allowed to be part of the

bargaining process by the governments.

Retired public servants deserve better than they are getting from this

government. After all, this government was the employer and they have a responsibility to

their former employees. They gave a commitment. We say, the time to act was yesterday.

They should have done something more about it. They made an initial step, and we commend

them for that, but there is a long ways to go yet.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.

WHEREAS the road through the community of Lethbridge has not been

upgraded since it was paved approximately thirty years ago; and

WHEREAS the road is in such terrible condition that vehicles are being

damaged, including school buses serving three 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 the road through Lethbridge;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition put forward and signed by over 800

residents of the surrounding area. As I look through the petition, I see not only

signatures from the Lethbridge area and from my District of Bonavista South, but, I say to

the Member for Terra Nova, many residents from his district have signed this petition as

well. They have signed it because they have seen first-hand how bad this particular road

really is through this community.

This road was paved approximately thirty years ago. Since that time

there has been absolutely no maintenance done to it, other than patching of the potholes.

It is about five kilometres.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it a Liberal district or a Tory district?

MR. FITZGERALD: It was a Liberal district, I say to the minister,

when he was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and nothing was done about

it then!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly, people expected

this particular road to be upgraded and paved last year. They were led to believe that

because it was common knowledge and, seeing some activity around the area where the

engineers had moved in and done some surveys, done some cost estimates of what it would

take to pave this road, they thought it was going to be done. They thought it was going to

be done because they knew it needed to be done.

There is one particular

section of this roadway where, at one time, the

railway used to go by. The road is so bad now that the railway is part of the roadway.

People have had to go around the paved

section of the road going through Lethbridge and

out into the railway

section in order to access the road through the community. There are

three schools that are serviced in this area with buses that travel over this particular

road.

The people in Lethbridge pay the same price, I say to members opposite,

for their gasoline, the same taxes, the same cost for insurance, the same cost to license

their vehicles, as people here in St. John's. What is frustrating to them is when they see

an Outer Ring Road, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, being built here in this

city, and those people having to come forward and sign petitions on a regular basis in

order to bring their plight to the House of Assembly and have some money spent on their

own roadway.

If there are two areas where I agree with comments that the Premier

made, one is in trying to take some money out of the Roads for Rail Agreement that is

presently being spent on the Trans-Canada Highway and put it out into areas like

Lethbridge, Winter Brook and Jamestown. That is certainly one of the areas where I

certainly agree with him.

The other one, I guess, is the monarchy. I agree with him, that should

be done away with as well; but that is removed from this argument that we are putting

forward here today.

It is a simple request. People are not asking that you put in sidewalks

or curb and gutter. In fact, at a public meeting that we had in Lethbridge just a couple

of weeks ago, where many residents of the area showed up to express their views and

concerns, the comment was brought forward: Look, we don't need you to come into Lethbridge

and do away with the turns and do away with all the hills. All we are asking is that you

come in, do some ditching, put in some culverts, build up the road where needed, and recap

the road.

Part of the Lethbridge area is also serviced by a dirt road. There is

approximately .8 of a kilometre, I think, where people have never, ever seen pavement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I plead to members opposite, and I

plead to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to include this area in his

works program this year and hopefully give the people of the area a decent road to drive

over.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also rise today to present a petition from my district, from the

community of Harry's Harbour.

The undersigned residents of Harry's Harbour, in the District of Baie

Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads. The

deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make travelling to and from

schools unsafe for our schoolchildren as well as jeopardize the safety of the travelling

public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and betray a lack of commitment to rural areas

of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame, in this day and age, that we have to

stand with such petitions in this House of Assembly, when people are talking about gravel

roads. They are not talking about recapping. They are not talking about doing it over

again. They are talking about, in the 50th year of our Province being a part of Canada,

standing in this House of Assembly to talk about gravel roads. It is a real shame.

What the people in these communities - not just Harry's Harbour but

Silverdale, Langdon's Cove and Jackson's Cove - are all talking about, especially in the

last couple of years as the roads... Of course, gravel roads deteriorate more and more all

the time. They have said it over and over to me. It does not even make sense anymore that

graders have to be sent out on a regular basis, over and over and over, to grade roads.

Now there is not even enough left there to grade any more.

These people are still living in the rural parts of Newfoundland, still

trying to eke out a living there. They still believe in rural Newfoundland, and are still

driving over gravel roads in this day and age.

The Member for Bonavista South made a point about the priorities in

spending. The one I always use as an example is in the District of Grand Falls. I got this

from the people themselves who lived there when the whole charade started about a

double-lane highway coming through Grand Falls, a place that I drive through every time I

travel back to my district. Now, when I come into Grand Falls, I see this huge pillar -

the Berlin Wall some people call it - going through Grand Falls. It is not like we have

80,000 or 90,000 or 100,000 people there. It is really a small Newfoundland community with

a double-lane highway going through, with a median that is higher than the one that goes

through the 401 in Toronto. Here we have a double-lane highway going through, that nobody

wanted, that ruined businesses along the route. It did not make any sense whatsoever. Here

we have the people in Grand Falls complaining that they did not want the double lanes,

they did not want the concrete median going through there. They argued all that, and here

we have people in Harry's Harbour and Silverdale who do not have a bit of pavement for the

first time.

Here we are about to celebrate Soiree '99, talking about the great

contribution that the country has given to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We

should be ashamed that we have to stand here, any member in this House of Assembly - I

speak for all members - who has to stand here today, as we head into the new millennium

when we talk about space age and technology and so on, and we still have people who are

travelling over gravel roads. It is not fit, it should not be.

The other point that many people in these communities say to me,

especially with school reform today, where we have children, now six and seven years old

who are getting on a bus - which is another issue altogether - sitting on one of those

buses with no seat belts. As I told the House a few days ago, I sat in the back of that

bus with the students just a short while ago to see what it would be like to get up 7:00

every morning to get on one of those buses that are unsafe. Never mind driving over

pavement that was rough, they are driving over gravel roads.

That is a real shame. These people in these communities have every

right to be complaining. They have every right when they see the priorities of the

government spending, to look down as they drive over the road and lose tires and shocks in

their car and they cannot get their roads paved. It is not right and it is not fair.

If the government talks about balance and fairness, they are going to

have to live up to that commitment and show us first hand. Because the last part of that

petition states it. If you want to see a commitment to rural Newfoundland it is people

that are asking for decent water to drink and for a road to drive over. They are not

talking for luxuries, they are not talking about multi-million dollar civic centres, they

are not talking about golf courses. They are talking about the necessities of living, a

decent road to travel over, and a decent drop of water to drink.

I support this petition again, as I have done many times in this House

before. Hopefully that message is sinking in, but with the Budget that was brought down

yesterday - and I've said this to the members across they way yesterday and got a response

from it. The actual truth is I was quoting members in the Department of Transportation who

said: If we get only $16 million again this year we do not know what we are going to do,

because we have the need for $120 million. That is why I said yesterday it was shameful, I

say to the Member for Bonavista North. That was an official, not just one, but several

said it to me. I can see where they are coming from.

The Department of Transportation are going to try to spread out that

$16 million over this Province that needs so much upgrading and paving of roads and also

gravel roads, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: So that is why I support the minister in looking for

more monies for his department, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I rise in my place today to support the petition presented by the

Member for Baie Verte on behalf of people from Harry's Harbour, Langdon's Cove, Jackson's

Cove, Silverdale and whatever.

Is it any wonder that the Member for Baie Verte was re-elected to this

House of Assembly? I have been here with him now almost six years and the man is

continually fighting, supporting, working hard, committed for the people of Baie Verte. He

got re-elected this time. I understand they put a wave on to try to defeat the Member for

Baie Verte, but no, he went back in because of what he is doing in this House of Assembly

today, speaking up for the people of the District of Baie Verte. That is what he is at.

I support the petition, of course. To say that in this day and age in

this Province with Soiree '99 on the go, fifty years after, that there are still roads in

this Province that are not paved, is shameful. This Administration - basically a Liberal

government that has been in power since 1989 -, this term they can start counting their

days, because after this term they are going to be finished. You can mark that down, that

in the House of Assembly on March 23, 1999 the Member for Cape St. Francis said the days

are numbered for that the government on that side of the House.

Because they are not doing for the people of the Province what they

said they would do, what they promised they would do, over the past number of years. That

is where I am coming from with respect to this petition. I think, as I said earlier, that

it is shameful that people today have to drive over gravel roads, dust flying all over the

place in the summer time, unsafe for buses to travel over in the Province.

We heard in the Budget that the government is going to spend $118

million on the roads in the Province this year, up from $110 million. I believe the

Province is putting in maybe $16 million; the rest is coming from Ottawa. Thank God, as I

said before in this House of Assembly, for John Crosbie and Brian Peckford who in years

gone by worked the Roads for Rail Agreement. Again, we need to get the work done in this

Province that the people deserve. We need to have safe roads, we have to have safe

infrastructure.

Speaking of infrastructure, if you go throughout the Province today and

look at the municipalities, see the condition of a lot of the infrastructure in this

Province with water and sewer falling apart, manholes falling down and caving in, it is

not safe anymore in the Province.

The Premier and the ministers on the other side of this House of

Assembly can stand in their place and try to say that everything is hunky-dory in the

Province, with a Budget that was brought down in the House of Assembly yesterday that was

laughable.

There are so many questions going to be asked in this House of Assembly

in the days to come with respect to the Budget, as the Minister of Finance today saw. His

head was spinning. It was almost like looking at the movie that was on a number of years

ago, The Exorcist .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to

support the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here today sent to me by residents of Trepassey. This

petition is regarding government's decision to allow IOC to process Newfoundland and

Labrador resources in the Province of Quebec.

The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

WHEREAS we the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador condemn the

provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process

Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in duty bound your petitioners will

ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this decision to allow these resources to go to Quebec is

contradictory to the stand they took on Voisey's Bay. I am sure the Minister of Mines and

Energy, who has been the point man on all controversial things for this government, cannot

truthfully stand in his place and tell us that the Premier is not speaking out of both

sides of his mouth when he talks about saying: Voisey's Bay ore must be processed here,

and allowing the company to find favour with Quebec to bolster him on his prime

ministerial search, to go and bend over and allow resources to have a detrimental affect

on the future of people in Labrador, and importantly in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The Minister of Mines and Energy at the time said - can you imagine a

mines and energy minister of this Province when he announced the pellet plant in

Sept-Iles, stand in his place and say: This decision secures the future of Labrador West

and is a solid base for growth and economic security for the area?

What type of medication was the minister on to make that statement?

What type of medication was that former Minister of Mines and Energy on when he made that

statement? People said: the audacity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He wasn't on seal oil capsules, I will say to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He should have rattled the cage, I tell you, a lot

more than he is rattling that pill bottle. Because I disagree with the stand. It is going

to sound a death knell in the long term for Labrador because it is allowing pellets to be

made in Sept-Iles, Quebec. When future conditions require a certain type pellet, where do

you think they are going to be obtaining them? It will result in layoffs to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did, sure, no wonder I did. To come in and try

to straighten out those politicians who make bad business decisions. That is why I got

into politics, to try to convince politicians to look at the economics and the people who

elected them in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What agenda? Why would we want to support economic

prosperity in Quebec at the expense of our Province? I want to see Quebec prosperous but

not at the expense of resources that are obtained in our Province. There is a long future

in Labrador West if we ensure that these resources were processed there.

They can play with figures all they like. Government are experts in

juggling figures to suit what they want to hear. Why? There are not many people here who

would doubt that it is more economically feasible to process Voisey's Bay nickel in

Sudbury where the capacity is, or in Thompson. No one doubts that. It is still

economically feasible to do it here in this Province, and no one will convince me it is

not economically feasible to pelletize in Labrador West.

It may be more, maybe it is. So what if it is a bit more expensive to

do it there, as long as it is economically feasible and we know it is? You cannot play

both sides. The Premier cannot jump up and down and take on big Inco, and bow down to

Lucien and IOC on those decisions that are important for the future of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Labrador has always been a prosperous area. I spoke with the member

actually today. He said to me: In Labrador West most people had the perception that

unemployment levels, really high, and they are, and their incomes are fairly well, but

there is a lot of social issues too that are starting to surface. That is a sign of things

to come.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition. I thank the people who submitted the

petition to show their support for the people of Labrador West, people who I am proud to

represent in this House. I would like to speak to the petition a bit if I may.

Following this election there was a meeting held between the committee

which was trying to stop the processing of ore outside the Province and governmental

officials and company officials in Sept-Iles, Quebec. That meeting, I am regretfully

saying, would not have gone ahead if I had insisted on attending. The people from the

government said that if an MHA attends this meeting the meeting will not go ahead. I did

not attend the meeting because I felt the government was looking for a way out, and if I

insisted on being there that was their way out. I would not grant them that and the

meeting went ahead.

This government not only agreed with the decision of the Iron Ore

Company of Canada to put that plant in Sept-Iles, they were the ones who made the

announcement for this government. They were the ones who released it. The security that

could have been provided for Labrador West in terms of 600 construction jobs for a period

of three years is gone down the drain with the help from this government. I can tell you

that the security of Labrador West as a community is threatened by this decision, because

that means that for the next four to five years people who retire will not be replaced. No

new people will be hired, and that causes people as they retire to leave the area because

their children are not growing up, graduating from schools and finding employment.

I would like to address, too, one of the things that the Premier of

this Province said when the deal was signed between the workers in Sept-Iles and the Iron

Ore Company of Canada. Let me tell you, and let me tell this House, that if somebody from

New Brunswick said they were sending 4.5 million cords of wood to be turned into paper, we

would not argue about that. We would gladly accept it as a province and as workers. The

people in New Brunswick would have a problem and so they should, the same as we do now.

For the Premier to suggest that during the election I knew about this deal and kept it

from the people of Labrador West shows how naive this Premier is concerning the

steelworkers' union; the same naivety that he has expressed time and time again about the

realities that are going on in this Province.

The Premier accused me of negotiating the deal for the people and the

workers in Sept-Iles. As I said in a news interview following that, I do not speak French,

I'm not studying French, unlike the Premier.

This decision was not, in our opinion, a business decision, it was a

political decision. The people of Labrador West are not stupid. They look at the Premier

of Quebec, Premier Bouchard, and the discussions he is having with Premier Tobin. They can

tie, and they are tying, the pellet plant decision, the Lower Churchill deal, and other

aspects that are going on in Labrador, as part of one package. They really believe, and I

agree, that the Premier of this Province really let the people of Labrador West down, and

I think they expressed that in their vote on February 9.

Mr. Speaker, in order for Labrador West to prosper and grow, every

ounce of iron ore that is dug out of the ground has to be processed there. Right now the

committee that has been formed, of which I was a part, are still working hard to try and

have that decision reversed. The committee has hired a consulting firm, and the government

has said to us: If you find anything, come back and let us know and we will have another

look at it. In other words, what the government is saying to us is, you do our work for

us. We commissioned the study. All they did was add up the same numbers that the people

from Bechtel, who did the original study, did. The study that the government commissioned

simply added their numbers and got the same total.

We are not quite doing it that way. We are picking it apart the way the

government should have done, or the people they had commissioned should have done. That

report will soon be finalized, and I am sure we will be hearing from the committee. The

gap, I can assure you, will not be as great as the one the government had commissioned and

listened to.

Mr. Speaker, when that commission from the government was released, the

government called myself and the president of the local union in Labrador, Mr. George

Kean, and invited us to St. John's. They would have released that report to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Their intent was for us to come back to Labrador and

release that report, because we would not have had any choice. We would be the bearer of

bad news, taking them off the hook.

Again, I wholly support the people who presented this petition today

and we are looking forward to much more support on this issue throughout the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the issue has been raised again briefly, and

delighted to hear the commentary from the newly elected Member for Labrador West.

There are a couple of things with respect to this issue that bear

repeating. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had one of the most reputed firms

in the whole of the mining sector, in the whole of the world, conduct an assessment of the

options for a pellet plant in Labrador West, which North IOC was looking at, versus the

activation of an already existing pellet plant in Sept-Iles.

Hatch Associates did the study on behalf of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and concluded that the work done for North IOC by another well-reputed and

well-respected mining industry sector analyst group in Bechtel, that they had done good

work, and the analysis showed that there was no case to demand, as the government, that

there be an expansion and an extension to the pellet plant in Labrador West, rather than

have the company invest in the reactivation of the existing pellet plant in Sept-Iles.

Mr. Speaker, that work has been done. We did say to the committee from

Labrador West, which has gone and hired another consultant to study the results of two

other consultants that have already done the work, that if they can find something

different we would be glad to hear it and glad to entertain it. I am waiting to hear back

from them with respect to that.

It shows that when you cannot deal with a particular issue with a sound

argument, the oldest trick in the book is to resort to the conspiracy theory. The

conspiracy theory that the member just espoused again is that there is a connection

between the Premier's so-called wish to become Prime Minister, and the Lower Churchill

hydro project, and giving something to Quebec - the biggest pile of nonsense that has ever

been spread in the land.

If they choose to want to make themselves believe it, I guess there is

not much we can do about people who do not have an argument, who have not been able to

present an argument based on any fact, so they resort to a conspiracy theory, one of the

oldest tricks in the book.

I respect the hon. Member for Labrador West in his representation, and

I have known him for his work as an international representative in the union with the

steelworkers for many, many years. It is the first time ever that I have heard him suggest

that there was something going on inside the international union that he did not know

about; because every other time that I have met the man, in over twenty years, he would be

proud to tell the world: I am an international rep. I am not just the local in Labrador

West. I know about what we are doing in New Brunswick. I know about what the union is

doing in Quebec. I know about what we are doing in Western Canada, because I am an

international rep and I know what is going on with the locals in every part of the

country.

Conveniently, while he was up there with the committee and running in

an election - and had some success, which is why he is seated here in this Legislature -

conveniently, all of a sudden, he knew nothing about a negotiation going along very nicely

in Sept-Iles that came to a conclusion about a week before the election was held. He knew

nothing about it all of a sudden. The man that knows everything, and always knew

everything about what goes on with every single local of the steelworkers in Canada

conveniently did not know that they were striking a deal in Sept-Iles for the very people

they were supposed to be fighting against. You talk about a nice lapse of memory and no

involvement for a person who has prided himself, in over twenty years in the labour

movement, of knowing what was going on because of his position as an international rep.

Mr. Speaker, from there on I guess we will take some of the things he

says with a little bit of a grain of salt because I really have not seen - you talk about

a flip-flop. We had a few flip-flops from the Official Opposition there a few years ago;

now we have the Member for Labrador West all of sudden flip-flopping from having the best

memory in the world to having no memory, all of a sudden, because it is inconvenient - not

to know about what is going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

The minister is engaging in two things that are unparliamentary. He is

engaging in a personal attack on the new Member for Labrador West, distorting the facts

himself, and accusing the member of misleading the people of this House and the people of

this Province. I object to that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. FUREY: Order 1, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve

itself into Committee of the Whole.

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

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to continue our comments on the Interim Supply motion that has

been before the House, Bill 1. Yesterday in the House we -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Good for you. I would say to the hon. Minister of

Fisheries that he has been asleep for years. It is a case of where we would be surprised

if he ever woke up.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the House that in Question Period today

we saw an interesting exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of

Finance. If you were to listen to the Budget Speech yesterday, one would believe that we

are going to have all kinds of money now put into health care. We listened to the

government during the election, and they said: Health care is our number one priority.

Yesterday, if you listened to what the Minister of Finance said, you

would have believed that we were going to have new beds open, we were going to have new

procedures made possible, and the waiting list would be cut back. We would be led to

believe that those people who have been waiting for a long, long time for various

procedures would be called very soon to say we are going to be able to facilitate early

treatment.

We learned that is not going to happen because, as the Leader of the

Opposition has said, and the health critic has said, there isn't anything in this Budget

that is going to give people who are sick and need help in this Province any great deal of

comfort. As a matter of fact, the great majority of the spending on health care is going

to be to straighten out the deficits that have already been incurred.

Today in Question Period we listened to the questions being asked so

ably by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Member for Ferryland, but we did not get

any answers. We were expecting the Minister of Finance would say that, yes, he was going

to make extra money available.

For people who need health care in this Province, there certainly

wasn't anything in yesterday's Budget that would give them any great deal of comfort. Yet,

we hear the spin doctors - and read what is written by the spin doctors for the government

- talking about $40 million to cover the extra expenses in health care. Again, we know

that is all going to go toward looking after the deficits that have been incurred up to

March 31, 1998. It does not say anything about the deficits that have been incurred in the

Budget year that we are now finishing in the next four or five days.

Therefore, it is to be assumed that the deficits, the operating

expenses, of health care in this Province will continue at the same levels they were last

year. If that is an assumption, therefore there is not enough money in this year's Budget

to be able to carry on the current level of service, let alone give people who need

service any hope they will be able to get more readily available health care.

Then we have the announcement of the new hospitals. We note that they

were already announced. In fact, they were announced one year ago, on March 26, 1998.

Again, we had them all listed out. We have to ask the question: How many times? How many

times would we have to have things announced before they are actually built?

We say to the government that it is wonderful for you to announce these

new hospitals; however, if we are going to have better health care in the Province we need

to do something beyond talking about it. We need to do something by way of action.

I note as well that there is a new accountability framework. In the

health care section, on page 14, there is a statement that could have been written right

out of the PC Party Blue Book in the election. It is exactly what we were talking about;

talking about hospital boards and other agencies being more accountable for their

expenditures.

We put that forward and we believe that is a good thing; however, we do

point out to the government that they have been negligent in the performance of their

duties by not having more controls over hospital expenditure before now.

We note here as well that it says, "Departments will take greater

responsibility for monitoring the performance of boards and providing feedback to

them." By implication, that says they are not doing it now. If they are going to take

more responsibility, it would mean that it is not now being done. We have to ask the

question: Why would the Department of Health not take greater responsibility for

monitoring the performance of boards and providing feedback to the department? Obviously,

in the Budget statement alone, the Minister of Finance is saying that officials and the

Minister of Health are not doing a good job.

We believe that accountability should extend even further. We believe

that this government should be giving more and more accountability to the people of the

Province. For example, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, in some provinces they

have an accountability act that requires the Minister of Finance to give updates on a

quarterly basis on the finances of the province.

In Alberta, for example, the accountability act requires the treasurer

to give a statement within sixty days of the end of the fiscal quarter. For example, it

would mean that at the end of June the treasurer in Alberta would have to have a statement

made publicly by the end of August.

Therefore, we say to the government, if you are going to talk about

accountability, because you are going to say that health boards are going to be more

accountable, then you should kind of follow your own advice and make the Minister of

Finance and the government departments more accountable on a regular basis.

Today with modern computerization there is absolutely no reason why

government cannot provide quarterly statements in a very timely manner to the people of

this Province. That way we would avoid some of the confusion that existed between the

Minister of Finance in his statements last fall, the Premier in his statements last fall,

and what we were getting from officials in the department. Because if the Minister of

Finance had been obliged to give a financial statement at the end of last August, another

one at the end of November, another one at the end of February, to correspond with the

various quarterlies sections of the fiscal year, then we would have had up-to-date

information. Certainly, this government is telling the health care boards: You have got to

be more accountable, while they themselves are not willing to be accountable.

Of course, we know what happened last year, (inaudible) last summer. We

had the Premier going around the Province making all kinds of commitments from places like

St. Lawrence, where he was going to play in big money to get the fluorspar mine going, all

kinds of commitments in all parts of the Province. At that point in time we were being

told that money was not a problem, that things would be okay. By October we were being

told there was going to be a $30 million or $40 million deficit, and then by January 14 it

had been up and down a little bit and then back to $30 million again. Then we find out in

our consultations relative to the Budget that the Minister of Finance knew back in October

that there was going to be a sizable infusion of money from the federal government through

the equalization program.

We say to the Premier, we say to the government, if you are going to

talk about accountability with the health care boards then I think it is fair for the

people of this Province to say that the government itself must also be accountable to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have a few other comments in my few moments this afternoon to talk

about, as well, some of the issues brought up yesterday in the Budget. Some of them have

already be alluded to this afternoon. In one of my earlier commentaries I was talking

about the commitment given to our seniors. What it works out to is that the new low income

seniors benefit comes out to be about $3.86 a week, something like that, $3.86 per week at

best. Of course, if the income happens to be anything over $12,000 a year then it will go

down.

I want to say that that is a beginning. It is not very much. I do not

know where the people of this Province who are in serious financial difficulty are going

to find comfort in their $3.86 a week but it is a beginning. It does not satisfy the

public service pensioners' wishes in this Province, but certainly we say it is a start.

Maybe in the next while the government will see the wisdom of its commitment to public

service pensioners and they will see the wisdom of giving them the same kind of increases

they have given to other public sector workers, and that we will be able to assure our

retirees in the public service that the government cares for them and their families.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will certainly rise in my place today and say a few words with

respect to the interim supply, Bill 2. I am quite anxious to say a few words too, I tell

you, about this Bill 2. I have here in my hands three documents that I received here in

the past week or so: the Speech from the Throne, the Budget Speech and the Estimates.

Celebrating 50 Years, that is the Estimates they are talking about.

I don't know which is worse. Last week I was sitting here listening to

the Lieutenant-Governor reading the Throne Speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You will find out now, I say to the minister. What is

he the minister of now, Government Services and Lands? You will find out what is wrong

with it now shortly, and in the next week and in the next year, I would say, Mr. Chairman,

to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. He will find out what is wrong with it.

I was actually pitying the Lieutenant-Governor for having to read the

Speech from the Throne. I thought that was pretty bad, I would say to you. There was

nothing in it really, nothing new, all kinds of stuff that we heard before. I'm here six

years now and I've been hearing the same thing for the past six years. People that have

been here twenty years, like the Member for Terra Nova, must have heard it, well, for the

past ten years for sure from the same government.

Then we have the Budget Speech. The Minister of Finance was up

yesterday going through the Budget Speech, basically saying what a wonderful place

Newfoundland and Labrador is. I agree it is, but it is not seen through the eyes of the

Minister of Finance, I can guarantee you that. Because I really don't know what province

that man is living in, and the government actually, and the Premier. I was watching him on

the news last night and he was getting all kinds of time talking about everything he is

going to do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are still waiting on the slogan he had in the last election. What

was the slogan in the last election they had? It was: A Better Tomorrow. Three years later

we are still waiting for a better tomorrow. In this last election it was: Our future, our

time and our whatever. It is not what the Premier would like us to believe.

With respect to this Interim Supply, the government is looking for

$1,057,878,300. Just imagine now, rounding it off to $300. They are getting pretty

specific when they are talking about over $1 billion, I can tell you that. We need this by

March 31. We get into the same thing every year. One billion dollars they want in interim

supply. It is usually a couple of weeks before March 31 that they open up the House of

Assembly. They try and put the pressure on us to get this interim supply through the House

of Assembly so they can pay the bills of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The biggest concern of course is the salaries for the civil servants.

Speaking of salaries for the civil servants, we have now in the Province a raise that was

given to - not given, fought for, I suppose, by the various unions, of 7 per cent. The

government is now saying that all the unions settled for 7 per cent; everyone has to

settle for 7 per cent, because there is no money there. Last year we saw the government

overspend by $160 million to $180 million. We can thank God in the Province today that

they got a windfall from Ottawa to cover their recklessness in spending last year. Now

they are saying we are going to have a $4 million surplus this year and a $33 million

deficit next year. Only for Ottawa they would be having $150 million to $160 million

deficit this year as was predicted and stated by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister of seals - no, sorry, the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that I would not mind having his chequebook, I can

guarantee you that. I would not mind having it.

Back to the salaries. We are on the eve of a possible strike tomorrow

morning by the nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen the RNC going through all

kinds of turmoil, out demonstrating and what have you, on the steps. It is something they

should not have to be doing. We have the RNC in a situation where they are not allowed to

strike. The government goes into negotiations with them, it costs them $60,000 or $70,000

for arbitration, and then they decide to ignore it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to the member for - I can stay up all

afternoon, I can tell you. Because this one document here can keep me up all afternoon,

this document here can keep me up all night, and this document here can keep me up all

month, I say to the member. One of my newest constituents, the Minister of Education, said

that she will listen. I say it is about time for somebody on that side of the House to

start listening, and listening to this side of the House, because we are always right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition, last fall, told the

people of this Province, told the Members of this House of Assembly, the state of this

Province with respect to the finances of this Province. When the Minister of Finance got

up and presented his speech yesterday - the Budget Speech - our numbers were right on,

confirming everything that we had said, and confirmed that they had made a mess. Only for

Ottawa, they would over there with their heads buried, trying to hide everywhere they

could hide.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't break my heart, I say to the Minister of

Education. She is going to have to leave, because I suppose the truth hurts. That is why

the Minister of Education would have to leave.

Believe this now: I have to give the former Minister of Education - the

Minister of Mines and Energy - a thank you. I have to give him a bit of credit because he

stuck to his word. I was after him for three years for a new school in my district and we

are finally going to get it, but that does not resolve the problem in my district. We need

another new school. We need a new school in Torbay, to resolve the problems in the north

zone. We need a new school in the Town of Torbay. Holy Trinity Elementary in Torbay is a

school that was built in 1956. There have been four extensions on to that school since

1956. I remember, when I was thirteen years old, around that age, up in the woods cutting

logs for the church down there at that time, and helping to carry the logs out of the

woods so we could have the saw mill cut wood to build an extension on to that school. That

was in the early 1960s. We need a new school down there.

I attended a meeting last night in the Town of Torbay, with over 300

people, about school reorganization. I have a meeting to attend tonight in the Town of

Pouch Cove, concerning school reorganization. I have a meeting on Wednesday night with

respect to school reorganization in the district of the north zone.

Basically, we have had many, many meetings over the past fall. We made

a presentation to the Avalon East School Board - complete harmony, complete cooperation

between the five schools - made a recommendation, and the school board decided to ignore

it and come back with two other options; one that was so far-fetched, it was unreal.

We are here talking about $101 billion for Interim Supply. What is

another $6 million or $7 million for the area down there? It is not a big deal to help

straighten up the school reorganization in the north zone. We have been led to believe

that to address the complete reorganization within the Avalon East boundaries and the

metropolitan area of St. John's, the north zone has to be addressed first.

We have a school down there, Holy Trinity Elementary, as I said, in

deplorable condition. It really, really is. The parents down there have actually taken a

camera and gone through the school and taken pictures of some of the conditions in the

school itself. They have had the fire department in, looking at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did, for one; I need another one now. I only need

two. That is no big deal.

Holy Trinity Elementary, basically one of the biggest elementary

schools in the Avalon East Board, is probably in the worst condition. We need a major,

major overhaul. Basically, some people are saying, if you go in and do a cost-benefit

analysis with respect to upgrading the school, it may be cheaper to build a new school.

That is all I am saying. That is what the people are saying. We are trying to get together

in the area, as I said, to come up with solutions.

We had the government download to the school boards, we had the school

boards download to the principals, lately, and ask the principals to go out and sell - in

my area, anyway - basically sell education reform and reorganization. Not education

reform, reorganization basically. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is just a sideline.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I have to take a break and get back up

in due course. I am sure someone else is going to get up now and say a few words. I don't

know who it may be.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is it?

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had not intended to get up this afternoon to make any comments. I was

going to leave that for other colleagues and members opposite, but when I sat here and

listened to the Member for Cape St. Francis make the comment that the Budget that was read

by the Minister of Finance yesterday was exactly how he, how they, had predicted it...

Let's start off with how they predicted the Budget: the best fiscal

performance since Confederation. That is exactly how the Tories said they predicted it.

The 1998-1999 Budget projected a $10 million deficit. Approaching the fiscal year-end,

there is a surplus of $136.9 million that they predicted. Who on the other side, including

the Leader of the Opposition, said continuously, week after week, month after month, last

fall and on into the new year, on into the election, there was going to be a $150 million

deficit?

The Leader is saying $150 million deficit and the Member for Cape St.

Francis is saying the Budget that was announced yesterday was exactly as they had

predicted. Now they are saying there is no money in health care in the 1998-1999 Budget.

The Budget makes strategic investments in health and community services.

Let's listen: $40 million to eliminate regional hospital boards

accumulated deficits to March, 1998; $21 million in additional funding for hospital

equipment; $15 million in additional funding for board budgets; $4.1 million to recruit

salaried physicians; $1.8 million for new drug therapies; $1.3 million to implement the

new Child Youth and Family Services Act; $.9 million over three years for the Tobacco

Reduction Strategy.

Close to $90 million will be spent for hospital facilities in St.

John's, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Gander, Harbour Breton, Stephenville, Old Perlican, Fogo,

Bonne Bay, Grand Bank, Grand Falls-Windsor; and they said no money going into health care.

The Budget was exactly as they had predicted. You see, the comment that

member just made is exactly the type of government that took place from the early days of

the Tory right up to the end of the Tory regime. It is exactly what happened. When they

took over power back in 1972, the total debt of the Province was about $800 million.

MR. TULK: Seven hundred and ninety.

MR. EFFORD: Seven hundred and ninety million, less than $1 billion.

How many years later? Seventeen?

MR. TULK: Yes, seventeen.

MR. EFFORD: Seventeen years later, the debt of the Province was in

excess of $7 billion.

MR. TULK: They increased it tenfold.

MR. EFFORD: They increased it tenfold. That is good fiscal

management, to start off with an $800 million debt and increase it tenfold to in excess of

$7 billion. Let me tell you, if you ran a business like that, what would happen to you in

a very short time.

Let's talk about if we had the interest that we are paying on that debt

on an annual basis; $585 million paid out every single year on interest on that debt was

incurred by the Tories over a seventeen year government. They are hanging their heads up

there, saying that this government is not doing anything for health care when we are

spending well over $150 million this year in hospital construction, money put into

decreasing the deficit, money put into buying new equipment, and money put in there for

new doctors.

Let me talk about education. We are not doing anything for education.

The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, what did he say? That the education system is in

total chaos. He just came out of the school, one of the best schools in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: One of our best schools in Newfoundland and Labrador,

the best education for our students out there - of which he was principal - and he is

saying that the education system is in total chaos.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Bishop O'Neill in Brigus.

I attended graduation after graduation when that part of the district

was my responsibility, and they had the most awards per students than any other school in

the whole region of Conception Bay North.

You said that the education system is in total chaos. You stood in the

House of Assembly this afternoon and said that it was in total chaos. How can you have

total chaos when you have an education system that is working as efficiently as that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: It is absolute nonsense, what you are saying out there.

Not only that, he was the principal of the school. Well, that is chaos in itself! I never,

ever heard the former principal of the school make a statement like that, out there in

Brigus. When you went in there, there was no problem. It was only when you left, that you

left a problem behind you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: One hundred and twenty-five million dollars is being

invested in school construction and upgrades.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Declining enrolment normally, under the existing

formula, would have resulted in a reduction of 418 teachers; however, this Minister of

Education, this government, will add back 236 of these positions, and you call that chaos!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The Province will continue to have the best

pupil-teacher ratio in the country, in the whole country of Canada, with a declining

enrolment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Max Smart.

MR. EFFORD: Max Smart with his shoe phone. That is exactly what it

represents.

Let's go on to the fishing industry. It is total chaos in the fishing

industry, too. Seven hundred million dollars worth of export value last year, 31,000

people employed in the industry, $200 million invested into the industry, and not one

nickel of taxpayers' dollars.

Let me tell you what the Tory plan was in 1993. The Tory plan in 1993

was to build seventy-five new fish plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the minister?

MR. EFFORD: Who was the Minister of Fisheries? The man who doesn't

know Chile from Cuba was the minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Seventy-five new fish plants. How many did we have at

that day? Two hundred and forty-five then, and he was going to put seventy-five more fish

plants in the Province. Now, there is chaos.

I suggest the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador made

a very wise decision in the most recent election, when they put back a government that is

going to govern this Province responsibly. The first balanced Budget since 1949, is that

correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The first and only balanced Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first real balanced Budget.

MR. EFFORD: The first real balanced Budget.

Let me ask you the final question. What is the difference in a balanced

Budget by this government and a government who took over with an $800 million debt in the

Province, and when they finished it was $7 billion - a tenfold increase? There is chaos,

and the hon. member should dwell on that for awhile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

He does not look one bit better, I might say.

The Member for Port de Grave, the minister of seals, is reflecting back

to the past - education. If you want to talk about education in the school he attended,

you would talk to the principal who oversees education in the school, not having the

minister show up at a graduation. When you show up at a graduation, it does not tell you

anything about what goes on inside the classroom of the school.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that anti-seal repellent? Well, it is not working.

He should go back to the pharmaceutical company, or the manufacturing company, or the

chemical company or whatever, and try to get something that is a little more effective,

because the number increased over here so it is not working. I have to say to the

minister, it is not working over here. He has to try something new. That anti-repellent is

not working. The Tory caucus is growing rapidly, I might add. Even the NDP caucus is

growing. That is even growing; that doubled.

Here today we have asked to give this government permission to go out

and spend $1,057,878,300. That is what we are asking them to do; the same government that

stands up and tells us - back in January and February and during the election - what they

are going to do for health care in the Province. When you look at it, really, when you

look at the Budget, here is what they are doing for health care: 50 per cent of what went

in the Budget has gone to pay off services that people had prior to 1998. Prior to 1998!

They were running deficits prior to 1998. Deficits for last year, admittedly - admitted

just by the board end on the deficit of $25 million, and now we are going to give a new

$15 million next year to solve the problems of $65 million in deficits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, what I am saying is, don't tell us you are going

to do it, and don't tell the people in the press you are going to do it, and turn around

after February 9 and do something completely different.

The Premier said - and I have his comment here - he has a health

minister who is a nurse and he goes home to a nurse. Basically he told us that he

understands and they are going to fix the problem. That is what he said. They are going to

solve the problem. He turns around after the election and what have they done? They have

not done one thing to allow people who are out there today waiting for a call from a

hospital - in fact, it has gotten so bad that the hospital in Gander now, when they call

you to tell you to come into the hospital, we have a bed, they call you collect. That's

right, they call you collect to tell you that we have a bed for you now, come in. Now that

is pretty cheap.

That was a person, I believe, in the district of the Member for Terra

Nova. I got a call a few months back. They call you collect. That would be worth checking

out. They tell you to come in. You are sick, you have been waiting weeks or months for a

bed, and they give you a collect call - a senior on low income - to tell you to come in.

What have we come to in health care in our Province?

As I walked through the hospital the other day I was stopped several

times. Everybody has a story; I could spend a week there. If anybody thinks that health

care is going to be better in this Province because of that Budget, they are being

completely misled.

There is not one area that it is going to address, not one aspect of

that Budget that is going to address, more than an inflationary aspect of health care.

Experts tell you that 2.2 per cent is the general inflation rate in the health care

sector. The hospital budget, nursing homes and other facilities in this Province, is

almost $700 million. We put $15 million in there; 2.2 per cent of that is $15.4 million.

We are not putting in enough to keep pace with inflationary costs of health care.

The lineups, I can tell you - we will stand in this House next year and

tell you that the lineups for health care, for cardiac surgery, are not the 100 they were

four years ago. They are at 250 today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would put a hospital on the centre of Fogo Island

and not down in Fogo, I tell the member. That is where we would put it, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell him! I have told him! I wrote a letter. I

sent a release. I made a statement. Here is why I would do it: because the Minister of

Municipal Affairs has talked about regionalization. They put the RCMP, the stadium, and

the school there. All of the services have been centralized. Because a small few - 72.8

per cent of Fogo Island said put it there. It is only a seven or eight mile difference

from where it is. That is why we should put it there, because you have been promoting

regionalization. You have been pushing it. Everything else is there; and now to change

that, after you promoted it. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

It is like the issue to tell you that it is okay for IOC to pelletize

the iron ore in Sept-Iles because it is more economically feasible, but it is not okay for

Inco to refine it in Sudbury and Thompson when it is more economically feasible. Everybody

knows that a smelter and refinery, that $1.1 billion or whatever you spend, it is cheaper

if the capacity is there to do it outside the Province, but we should not, and I agree

with the Premier, allow Inco to get off the hump because it is still economically

feasible.

You changed the Mineral Act, the former, former minister, to say that

economically feasible is not interpreted to mean, or does not mean, the highest possible

rate of return. Economically feasible means you can make a profit on it. That is what

economically feasible is. You can make a profit on it in Argentia, you can make a profit

on it in Labrador West, and it should go there. Because you are talking out of both sides

of your mouth, because it is convenient and because you may want some benefits from Lucien

and the Lower Churchill. Benefits, who knows, next year, the year after, whenever the

calling comes from above, when he gets on that track. There was a train came back from

Ottawa, even though the track is gone. The acting Government House Leader Acting said it

was a big train coming. That big train might be going back again. It might have lost a few

cars along the way, but will be heading back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I could tell the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, forget it, you will never get in that seat. The closest you will be there is

the seat you were in today, briefly.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are an expert at losing (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am an expert at it, I can tell you. I have

lost my share. I have only lost one. That was by three votes. Almost lost my first

election, too, I will tell him. (Inaudible) 125 votes I won it by, my first one. I have

been there. You never enjoy the taste of victory until you have witnessed the agony of

defeat, I would say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, won my share and lost my share. Won more than I

lost. In spite of what the Premier indicated, that we were going to be devastated here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: All going to be wiped right out. I even got off the

highways, I was afraid I was going to be run over. The best thing I had - if the Premier

wanted to defeat me he should have left the Minister of Fisheries home. He spent four

days, I think, up in the district, and every time he came up there were more people came

to my side. I asked: Where is he gone?. When he did go back he left it so late after

three-and-a-half hours at a meeting he went off the road on the Witless Bay Line.

They called the Department of Works, Services and Transportation up

there and said the minister and the camera crew are in a ditch on the Witless Bay Line. I

said: Leave them there. That is a fact. He said a camera crew. I did not see any camera

crew when we were up there. That is what the minister said when he hauled out his little

cell. He said: I am here with a camera crew, I have to get back to Port de Grave, send

someone out. He called people in from all over. They called six different workers. They

could not get trucks for him to drive to get in. They all rushed out to the Witless Bay

Line. He spent an hour-and-a-half in a ditch. Ask him, he can stand up and confirm it.

That was the highlight of the election in Ferryland district. We saw the Premier rushing

off for the last time.

I wish you had to get there a week earlier because my margin would have

been more than 2,340, 2,440, whatever it was. It would have been larger because every time

you came up there were about another fifty who said: What have you done? The only area,

Minister, that you have control over is the Loan Board, and look what you have done. All

quotas and crab, that is all federal responsibility there. Anyway, he did show up, I must

say. I will say one thing about him. He did not come up and try to tell them one thing

basically and turn around after. I will admit that. I give him credit for that. It was all

set up, up on the -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) negative.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he did not. I did not attack the member either. I

talked about the issue of the Loan Board. I will agree with you. I can say that is an

awful lot more than I can say for everybody else up there who ran the campaign, I can tell

you, for the other party. It did not come. They staged it up in Fermeuse. The minister had

big announcements on a plant opening.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is enjoying it.

CHAIR: Leave is denied.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? I was going to say something good about

you. I was going to say something good about him. By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. I will get back again and give you some more

good news later.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to join in this very interesting debate this afternoon as

we once again debate Bill 2 granting interim supply for our Province in excess of $1

billion- $1,057,000,000 -, an amount that this government obviously feels is necessary to

simply tide things over to allow the wheels of government to turn, to do what it hopes and

assumes is in the best interest of the people of this Province.

We heard yesterday a budget - all we have to do is go back to the

questions that were raised today during Question Period by the Leader of the Opposition -

which simply twists figures. One minute we are dealing