May 25, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 35

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon, the Chair would like to welcome some visitors to our gallery.

We have, from Dunne Academy in St. Mary's, in the District of Placentia &

St. Mary's, twenty-two Grade VII students with their teacher, Mrs. Marjorie

Gibbons, and their bus driver, Mr. Stan St. Croix. We welcome these young

citizens to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: We also have Mr. Herb Brett, the President of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, and some other municipal

leaders from various municipalities throughout the Province. We welcome Mr.

Brett and his municipal colleagues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: We have Statements by Members. We have two members, the hon.

the Member for Grand Bank and the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to rise in this

House today on a point of privilege. This action is not something I take

lightly, but it is an action I deem to be necessary. I was told a long time ago

that in politics the main task is to always define or be defined. I would like

to have a few moments to define what I believe to be a serious beach of my

rights and privileges as the elected Member for the District of Placentia &

St. Mary's.

Mr. Speaker, a little over eleven years ago I was first elected to this

House. Throughout those years I have seen and witnessed the good, the bad and

sometimes the ugly. In the partisan political environment that we are in, you

expect to receive the occasional negative comment to your person. They say in

politics you have to develop a thick hide. I believe, as an individual, I can

withstand, and have withstood, a serving of it all.

When something is said about me personally I sometimes laugh it off, say

something back in jest to the person or, in most cases, forget about it and move

on.

On Thursday, May 20 th , Mr. Speaker, I witnessed an all-time low.

Throughout the day, as the regular business of government was proceeding, the

conversation across the House grew more personal than I have ever seen before.

The Member for Bellevue verbally attacked me all day long from his seat on

the opposite side of the House. He made several comments across the floor

towards me about an incident that occurred in my family over a decade ago.

Mr. Speaker, I am not perfect and neither is my family. I have five brothers

and a sister and two wonderful parents that I love and respect. I have a wife

and three children that I love, respect and honour, and give God thanks for each

day.

Mr. Speaker, members of my family, as I am sure all others, have made

mistakes and have paid dearly for them. However, as an elected politician, I

should not have to listen to it here in the House of Assembly. Personally, Mr.

Speaker, I am fair game, but that is where it ends.

Mr. Speaker, again on Thursday, even though the comments and bantering from

the Member for Bellevue bothered me, I tallied it up to the usual frustration

with his role here in the House since last fall. But, then, Mr. Speaker,

something happened that I did not expect or appreciate.

Immediately following the rising of the House on Thursday afternoon and your

exit from the Chamber, I was packing up my briefcase and preparing to leave my

desk, when the Member for Bellevue crossed the floor of the House of Assembly,

came right up to my desk, and continued his verbal attack on myself and my

family.

Mr. Speaker, the member then said to me, "I guess you and your father

are going over to St. Pierre this weekend, are you?" I said to the member,

"You're treading on thin ice - please get out of my face." Then the

Member for Bellevue said, "We are going to take you down", and stepped

back towards the exit door behind me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at this time, that I have sat here in this

House, in this seat, since November of last year. I have never seen the Member

for Bellevue use this door to enter or exit this hon. House. He always uses the

main door or one of the doors located on his side of the House.

To continue, Mr. Speaker: As I was preparing to leave the House, the Member

for Bellevue stood and blocked the exit. He then said, "You are not leaving

until I am finished with you." I said to the member again, "You are

treading on thin ice."

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue then put his fist up to my chin and

said, "You, your father and all of you should be in jail." Mr.

Speaker, I pushed his hand away from my face and said to the Member for

Bellevue, "You are a lucky man to say that to me on the floor of the House

of Assembly." I then turned around and left by the exit at the other end of

this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, to say I was upset would be an understatement. This desk is my

place in the House of Assembly, this desk belongs to the people of the District

of Placentia & St. Mary's, and I do not believe any other member has the

right to approach it or come near it with what I believe was the intent of the

Member for Bellevue. I take great exception to that and believe that action

alone was a breach of my privilege here in the House of Assembly. Then, Mr.

Speaker, to be followed by the blocking of the doorway through which I enter and

exit the House on a daily basis and to have a clenched fist put up in my face,

is definitely, in my view, an affront to not only me, Mr. Speaker, but indeed

all the members of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe that my father and my family, or any family of

any member of the House of Assembly, should not be used to even cheap political

scores or to aggravate or agitate other members.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I admit to brushing away from my face the arm of the

Member for Bellevue, and I apologize to him, to you and to the House of

Assembly, and all members of the House, for that.

Mr. Speaker, I serve notice today, I became involved in politics knowing

full-well that my life and my actions would be in the public domain, but my

family are not here and neither should they be. So, to the Member for Bellevue

and all others, hands off!

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I make no comments towards the comments of the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's, other than the fact that it is my understanding that the Speaker has

this matter under study at the present time based upon events that were reported

to you following last Thursday's sitting. I do not believe it is a point of

privilege that has been raised.

The only comment we will make at this time is that, we would leave it to Your

Honour's consideration based upon the information you have and what has been

reported to you to date. We certainly don't consider the comments of the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to be a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is very cognizant of the happenings that occurred

after the adjournment proceedings on Thursday, May 20. The Chair has had

dialogue with a number of members and with some of the leadership within the

House. The Chair will take the matter of the point of privilege under advisement

and will report back to the House after there has been dialogue with the

officers of the House and with the leadership of the House. Hopefully, that can

occur within a reasonable length of time.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I rise today on a point of privilege that is following a point

of privilege that I made on May 17. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I raised a point

of privilege with regard to a public document that I received through Freedom of

Information from the Executive Council of government that contained less than

factual information, inaccurate information, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Transportation and Works did make a statement in this House

on May 18, in which he apologized for the release of inaccurate information

under Freedom of Information, Mr. Speaker. I rise today, because it is the first

opportunity that I have had since the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation has been in the House of Assembly since that date.

I wanted to rise today, Mr. Speaker, on another point of privilege simply

because I feel that my privileges as a member were violated by the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The minister issued a press release, Mr.

Speaker, attacking my credibility by questioning the source of my information,

saying it was false and inaccurate - that is what he has stated in his release -

when indeed, Mr. Speaker, this information was obtained directly from his

department and through his executive, through the Executive Council under the

Freedom of Information.

Mr. Speaker, I did get a call from the Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation, who admitted to me that the false information did indeed come

from the minister's department, and that it was sent to Executive Council.

They were not aware that the information would be forwarded to me under Freedom

of Information, and he did apologize, as a bureaucrat, for having put out the

false information.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation to be an

hon. gentleman and I am sure that the press release that he issued attacking my

credibility would not have happened if he had indeed known all the facts, but I

feel that my integrity has certainly been questioned, and my ability to

represent issues in the public and in the House of Assembly.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

to do the honourable thing and to apologize for the statements that he issued in

his press release.

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

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

To the point of privilege: First of all, we believe it has been dealt with,

but let me review the facts as they are. This issue that the member has raised

deals with the Labrador Travel Subsidy Program, if I am correct. That program

itself was established in 1969, Mr. Speaker, and it is currently administered by

the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The program itself provides

funding to offset travel costs for Labrador residents participating in

provincial sport and culture events on the Island, and interprovincial

competitions in Labrador.

The MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, as she has indicated, issued a

press release on May 12, 2004, indicating that the subsidy was reduced by

$10,000 in Budget 2004. On May 14, my colleague, the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, corrected this statement in a press release and

indicated that Budget 2004 maintained the $427,000 for the program, as allocated

in the previous fiscal year.

The member has since indicated that she obtained the information, as she has

just indicated, from the Budget Details and Statistics, March 30, 2004, document

released by the Executive Council. It is questioned again today why inaccurate

information was released on the program.

Mr. Speaker, I do know, because I have spoken to the Deputy Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that he has spoken to the member himself and

explained that departmental officials had provided inaccurate information to the

Executive Council prior to the release of the aforementioned document.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, which was also explained to

the member by the Deputy Minister, was unaware that the member had obtained the

information via the aforementioned process, and that the inaccurate information

was contained in the document when he issued the press release on May 14, 2004.

The correct allocation of $427,000 is referenced under Labrador Operations,

Grants and Subsidies, on page 166 of the Budget Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that, while the member may believe that

her privileges have been breached because of information that was provided in a

document, and some of the information was inaccurate and that was admitted to in

the House, was determined by the House, which it was, but the document that

foreshadows all of that, Mr. Speaker, the only document that really matters is

what was tabled six weeks before the member's release, and that is the Budget

Estimates. I reference for the member, on page 166, under Labrador Operations,

Grants and Subsidies, for the program that was in question, the amount to be

voted upon is $427,000.

There is no breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There was some mix-up and fool

up with respect to information that was released. That has been admitted to by

the House, by the government which apologized to all members, and I think it is

time to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think this is a case of - first of all, I don't think it has been

ruled on. We dealt with a ruling in this House last week that dealt with a

breach of privilege, or an alleged breach of privilege, from several ministers

who had made several comments based upon a certain document that was released

which was proven to be infactual.

The commentary that I recall you ruling upon was that, it was indeed

satisfactory for the Premier, being the first minister, to apologize on behalf

of all ministers. That is my understanding of what the ruling was. That does not

take away, I would submit, from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair

being able to raise a point of privilege, that her privileges were personally,

privately, affronted by the actions of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

We do not need to get here and try to weasel out about what was said in the

documents or not said in certain documents, and this Budget document speaks for

itself and whatever. We are here because the perception was left in the public

by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, albeit unintentionally,

albeit with no deliberateness, albeit with no intent to malign anybody,

particularly the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that impression was

left out there that she did not know what she was talking about.

All this member is saying is, I just asked the minister personally, not under

the guise of parliamentary rules, not under the guise of I can talk my way out

of it because some other document leaves another impression, but simply a matter

of privilege, a matter of personal actions between two members of this House

with one saying to the other: I was not pleased with what you did, I appreciate

that what you did was misleading, and I would also appreciate it if you would

simply get up and apologize for what happened and we move on.

I think she does have a valid point of privilege, I do not think it is a big

issue, and we can easily move on by not trying to colour this matter, but simply

having an honourable exchange of the complaint and the apology by two members of

this hon. House.

Thank you.

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

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

I did not intend to rise to this today but I think I should. My colleague

explained it quite well, how this all unfolded. I do say to the member, just

days before her hon. colleague, the critic for Tourism, went through the entire

Estimates with no questions raised whatsoever, my Deputy Minister did call the

member and explain to her that I did not know that information.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was apologized for by the government, the right

things were done, but if it takes an apology from me to the member, whom I have

known for a long time, so be it, I apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe the Chair will declare this matter

satisfactorily resolved.

Statements by Members.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Steven King of Grand

Bank, presently working as a Petroleum Engineer in Red Deer, Alberta. Steven

shattered the provincial power lifting record in the 100 kilogram junior

division in the Province of Alberta.

In his first ever competition, Steven gave an outstanding performance setting

incredible records with a total weight of 1,421 pounds in power lifting - 308

pounds more than the previous provincial record.

Steven's squat of 518 pounds, 347 pound bench press, and 556 pound dead

lift, saw him outperform his competition. He was declared the second best lifter

overall in a field of more than 100 lifters in all weight categories.

Steven comes by his ability naturally. His father Jim and brother David are

both weight lifters. David excelled in Olympic weightlifting.

Steven's parents are Jim and Joanne King of Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating

Steven King.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the Town of

New-Wes-Valley. The municipality has recently engaged in discussions to develop

a "Twin Town" connection with Nanortalik, Greenland.

The southernmost town in Greenland, Nanortalik, has a population of 2,500,

and like the people of New-Wes-Valley, the residents of Nanortalik are

progressive and eager to continually develop and improve their home. With the

assistance of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, a

connection was established between the two towns and this past weekend the Mayor

and Chief Executive Officer from Nanortalik visited New-Wes-Valley. I had the

privilege of meeting with these gentlemen on Friday and Saturday and discovered

that, although separated by geography, we shared much common ground.

The people of Nanortalik are interested in initiating student and teacher

exchanges, and their business community is extremely interested in developing

commercial links with the New-Wes-Valley area. Based on this initial meeting I

am very hopeful that a strong and productive relationship will be created

between these two towns.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the members of the council

and the residents of New-Wes-Valley. This progressive municipality provides us

with a wonderful example of the opportunities for development and growth that

exist in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to announce changes to the Air Pollution Control Regulations

that will help reduce air pollution and improve air quality in our Province.

Government is committed to enhancing air quality and protecting human and

environmental health. Mr. Speaker, strengthening our air pollution control

regulations to meet a higher environmental standard demonstrates that

commitment.

The new regulations include a 2 per cent annual limit on sulfur content in

heavy fuel used in the Province and a provincial sulfur dioxide emissions cap of

60,000 tonnes per year. These new standards address some of our major sources of

air pollution in the Province and will result in a 20 per cent decrease in local

sulfur dioxide emissions from 2000 levels. The sulfur dioxide emissions cap and

limit on sulfur content in heavy fuel come into effect January 1, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, companies that release more than twenty tonnes of sulfur dioxide

a year must prepare an annual report for government outlining fuel usage, fuel

sulfur content and sulfur dioxide emissions. All companies must follow the same

environmental standards, and provisions

have been made for penalties for non-compliance. The regulations were

developed in consultation with industry, and government anticipates full

compliance.

Government is committed to improving standards under which industries operate

as we move forward in our efforts to protect and ensure a clean environment. As

a result of changes to our Air Pollution Control Regulations there will be less

industrial emissions released into the atmosphere, thus reducing pollution.

Mr. Speaker, there are also new standards for incineration, including a ban

on open burning of such items as tires, plastics and treated lumber. The ban on

burning, other than at a licenced facility, is effective immediately. The ban

will extend to all waste disposal sites in 2005.

Changes to the regulations also give government the authorization to

establish vehicle emissions standards. Mr. Speaker, many provinces are moving

toward some form of mandatory testing for vehicle emissions, and our new

regulations will allow us to introduce vehicle emissions standards at some point

in the future.

Mr. Speaker, improving our Air Pollution Control Regulations is in line with

government's Blue Book commitment to a health environment and achieving a high

quality of life for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Government will continue

to take action to address air quality in the Province and demonstrate its

overall commitment to protecting and enhancing the environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate receiving an advance copy of the minister's statement. It

certainly is good news to see anything that will enhance and improve our air

quality, for humans, of course, for our environment, and the overall health of

everyone.

I guess we are still in the CRA polling period, and I certainly say hats off

to this minister. He is doing his share to see that you get a good result, this

being about his third or fourth Ministerial Statement since the poll started.

Anyway, we also look forward, in addition to these good news announcements,

Mr. Speaker, to hearing something from the minister on such issues as the New

Harbour dump, for example, which was committed to be cleaned up. We would also

appreciate hearing from the minister as to what this government's role is, if

any, in the federal protocol being prepared for our coastal marine waters.

I understand, in the news today even, there is a consultation going on

between the federal Department of Environment and the federal Department of

Transportation to design a protocol as to what would happen vis--vis

discharges in our oceans and so on. This is a very important issue. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier had taken us up on our offer last week, vis--vis the

all-party committee to draft a position paper on where we stood, we probably

would have these very same items included in an all-party resolution, which is

indeed very important.

We look forward to hearing from the minister in the future, as to what he

intends or where he is going to go with these other important issues concerning

our environment also.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are glad to see that the minister's department is taking action on air

pollution, particularly sulphur dioxide emissions. I will say, however, that one

of the biggest contributors to this is the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

Thermal Generating Plant in Seal Cove which has emissions in excess of 20,00

metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide, in addition to a 750,000 metric tonnes of

sulphuric acid every year. These are significant contributors to pollution in

our environment and something has to be done, seriously, to do something about

that.

We also, Mr. Speaker, look forward to this government changing its position

that it had in Opposition, of opposition to the Kyoto Accord, and trying to, in

fact, get advantages from this Province for the economic activity that is

required to retrofit homes, to eliminate green house gases, improve our

environment and to do good things for our economy at the same time.

This is a positive step -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - but we would like to see a lot more from this government on

the issue of environmental protection and advancement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week in the House the Minister of Government Services

announced regressive and unnecessary changes to the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commission. She, in fact, stated that the contract for the Commissioner expired

today, May 25. Why did the former Commissioner receive a phone call late Friday

night, at the beginning of a long holiday weekend, from the Deputy Minister of

Government Services advising him that his contract did not expire until the end

of the month?

I ask the Minister of Government Services, why did she give the former

Commissioner a premature termination notice? Is it another example of the

government's bungling when it comes to the decision-making process or just an

example of the government's haste to remove a very effective Commissioner and

start pleasing the oil companies instead?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, an Order-in-Council was issued by the former

Administration, and even the Commissioner did not realize that his term was up.

May 25 was the end of the Commissioner's term and it was later discovered that

the previous Administration had rescinded that order and issued another

Order-in-Council.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the minister admits that she did not know the details before she made the

announcement last week. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, to this side of the

House, I can tell you, for sure. Mr. Speaker, was this, in fact, the minister's

attempt to hide the fact that she made another fairly serious blunder or was

this just another work in progress similar to the Budget documents that she

described a couple of weeks ago?

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why did you request that the former

Commissioner submit a resignation effective yesterday, yesterday, a resignation

effective yesterday in exchange for an extra week of salary and benefits until

the end of May? Who directed the deputy minister to make this late night phone

call on Friday night asking the former Commissioner to resign so he could be

guaranteed an extra week's pay and benefit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, myself and the Commissioner had a conversation

and, as far as I was concerned, his contract was up May 25. He informed me at

that time that he was relieved, that he had a job waiting, a campaign job, that

he was very pleased with his work at the Commission, and was very pleased with

the government. In fact, right now the PUB will be taking over that Commission,

and effective today there will be a new Commissioner in place.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to ask the question again, because I believe it needs

clarification.

Could the minister tell the House and the people of the Province, who

directed her Deputy Minister to call the former Commissioner late on Friday

night, at the beginning of a long holiday weekend, and ask that he send in a

letter of resignation, when last week she stood in this House and announced that

he was terminated effective today? The question was: Who gave the instruction to

try and bribe the Commissioner to submit a letter of resignation in exchange for

an extra week's pay? That is the question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, for all intents and purposes a new Commission was

going to start on the 25 th of May. The previous Commissioner and

myself had that conversation and we both agreed that he did a fine job, and he

said that he had new employment waiting. He was very agreeable with the Deputy,

from my sources; that he was delighted to send a letter of resignation into the

department.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the question again, because if we are not going to

get the answer in the House, the people of the Province will get the answer

sometime, somewhere. I expect we should get it in the House of Assembly.

I ask the Minister: Why did you rush the termination before the effective

date, and, then, who instructed the Deputy Minister to request a letter of

resignation which has not appeared? I have seen a copy of the letter that was

sent to the minister today, Mr. Speaker. There is no resignation. Why did the

government feel it was important to try to have the former Commissioner resign

his position instead of being terminated at the end of his contract, at the end

of May, as the law and his contract would dictate, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the PUB was notified that the Mr. Noseworthy

would be the new Commissioner taking over the PPPC. The conversation, as I was

informed by my Deputy, was that Mr. Saunders would submit a resignation today,

effective May 24. He will be paid an extra week, but what I would like to ask

the Leader of the Opposition: Why did they rescind the first order and make it a

second order, was it to give a political appointee another week's pay?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the long weekend a federal election was called,

unfortunately this Province missed a great opportunity to have our issues heard

and presented to our federal candidates and leaders by establishing an all-party

committee, a committee that would have put the interest of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to the forefront.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Now that we are in the early

stages of this election campaign, will you reconsider your previous stance of

last week and now support this committee? Will you join with ourselves and the

NDP in putting aside party politics in an effort to ensure that our federal

candidates give a commitment to put this Province's issues ahead of any other

agenda in Canada?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it serves the best interest of the people of the

Province to join in an all-party committee with hon. members opposite, who were

members of the last government. With all due respect to the members of the New

Democratic Party, that certainly does not include them. However, while they were

in government federal-provincial relations hit an all-time low. That has been

admitted by the former Premier and the current Leader of the Opposition. They

basically burnt every single bridge between the Province and Ottawa. So, there

would be no benefit, as I said last week, in us hitching our horse to a wagon

with no wheels on it. That is exactly why we are not going to do it.

I can assure the Opposition House Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - that I am doing absolutely everything possible, and

members of the Cabinet and members of the caucus are doing everything we can to

bring the issues to the attention of the members of the federal government.

I have personally spoken to MP Matthews, MP Byrne, and I haven spoken twice

to Minister Efford over the course of the last seventy-two hours. I have spoken

to the Prime Minister twice in the last two weeks, and I have spoken to the

Minister of Finance in conjunction with the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board. We are putting the issues before the various ministers and

before the various members of Parliament. That, we think, is the best course of

action. We do not see any benefit, whatsoever, in tying ourselves to people who

have a very poor and pathetic relationship with Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has no commitment on changes to the equalization formula. The

Premier has no commitment on the Atlantic Accord. The Premier has no commitment

on the Lower Churchill development. The Premier has no commitment on fisheries

management. The Premier has no long-term commitment on 5-Wing Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier. You have had no success in getting any

commitments from Ottawa so far, other than having speaking engagements with

them. Can you explain what you intend to do, solidly, firmly, in writing, to get

commitments from the federal politicians, candidates and leadership now that we

are in the middle and in the midst of a federal campaign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member understands, our approach has not been one of

confrontation. Our approach has been one of co-operation, consultation and

collaboration. That is the approach that we intend to pursue. As he also knows,

I do have commitments in writing from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and

from the Leader of the Conservative Party. Those are actually, in fact, in

writing. We do have those. We will continue, as I said, to talk to the various

leaders. Mr. Harper is in town tomorrow. I will be taking these issues up with

him again. We have gotten action on the 5-Wing Goose Bay file, as he knows. I

have had a strong indication from the Prime Minister that he is prepared to take

action on custodial management. I have been told by the Prime Minister that he

considers the Lower Churchill to be a national project, and we intend to

continue to pursue the Atlantic Accord.

The hon. member, the former Premier may laugh, but if we remember correctly,

he went to Ottawa and he came back with a commitment on equalization from Prime

Minister Chrtien. Can you remember that? Twenty-four hours later the Prime

Minister came out and said you had no commitment. Well, that is not what we are

going to do. We are going to deal with them in good faith. We are not going to

put words in their mouths and we are not going to say we have commitments that

we do not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I fear the Premier's inaction on these federal-provincial issues will

ensure that this Province is, once again, forgotten after June 28. We now have

an opportunity to make a difference, but the Premier's wait and see approach

is not working. It is fine to be friends with our federal counterparts, but

friendship is a two-way street. We continuously give to Ottawa and get very

little in return.

Premier, will you stand up for the people of this Province and get some

results? Will you let the people of this Province wait another year, another two

years, another three years, before you realize that your verbal approach is not

working and there is nothing wrong with asking the federal leadership - in this

case the Liberal leadership, because you have it from the other two - to sign on

to an all-party resolution whereby the commitments that we all want for this

Province would be agreed to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, where was the hon. member when he was a minister in that

government? Why wasn't he so vocal then? Why didn't they do something when

they were in office for three years? Why didn't the previous governments do

something for fifteen years?

How does he have the gall to stand up in the House now, when we are in power

six months - nearly seven months - and try to place the blame on us all the

time, when the mess was created by you and your government? You know that, and

yet you have the cheek to stand up and try to blame us. Well, we are going to

try and correct it. We are trying a new approach, and that approach is going to

work, believe me.

You created this mess. We are trying to clean it up, and we are going to do

that to the best of our ability. Believe you me, I can tell you right now, I

will stand up, my Cabinet will stand up, my caucus will stand up, and fight for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the best of our ability!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is a bit testy again today. My questions are for the Minister

Responsible for Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

Minister, today we have representatives from the Federation of Mayors and

Municipalities in our galleries, who are attending meetings to discuss ferry

services in our Province. Prior to and during the election, as well as in your

Blue Book, you promised the people of this Province reduced ferry rates to bring

them in line with road transportation.

Since you did not meet with these people today, can you tell this House: Why

have the rates increased by 25 per cent, rather than having been reduced like

you promised prior to the election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me respond to the allegation

of not meeting with this group today.

This group, seven days ago Friday, sent a written request to meet with me.

Well, everybody knows that two days last week I was Government House Leader here

and could not leave the floor of the House. On Wednesday, I had to appear before

the Estimates Committee and do my Estimates. On Thursday, we had Cabinet. Some

time late Thursday night, I saw the bottom of my in-basket for the first time

last week, Mr. Speaker, and when I saw the bottom of the in-basket I found that

this group had unilaterally set a date today for their meeting and demanded that

I appear.

Mr. Speaker, I do not operate that way. I will meet with anybody, anywhere,

any time, given reasonable notice, but I will not be dictated to, and be

available at the whim of somebody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whim?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, the whim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have been around long enough, and I am not going to - I do

not treat people that way and I do not take kindly to being treated that way

myself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of rates -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer very quickly.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will try, Mr. Speaker, sure.

On the issue of rates, Mr. Speaker, we would like nothing better than to

reduce ferry rates, do away with them all together - we would like nothing

better - but, Mr. Speaker, the godawful financial mess that we inherited from

this crowd opposite, they are the last ones that should be getting up talking

about what we should do to correct the financial situation of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the people of the Province are becoming a little sick of your

excuses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, it has come to our attention that your

department is doing renovations to the Lewisporte ferry terminal. Can the

minister confirm that the money he is using is coming from the Labrador

Transportation Initiative and that he is planning to put his constituency office

in that building once the renovations are complete?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that there are

some minor renovations being carried out to the transportation facility, what

used to be the station there in Lewisporte, but my understanding, Mr. Speaker,

is that the funding that is used to pay for it is coming from a grant that the

previous government gave to the Chamber of Commerce in Lewisporte last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I again ask him: Can he check to confirm where the finances are indeed coming

from, and the amount that is being spent on the renovations there, please?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to check. I just gave the hon.

gentleman the answer. The funding is coming from - I do not know what the dollar

figure is; I will find out, but - the funding is coming from a grant that the

previous government gave the Lewisporte and Area Chamber of Commerce just before

the election was called last year, so that they would not be on the former

minister's back. That is where the money is coming from, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education, and it has to do with the Leary's

Brook Junior High School in St. John's.

Parents, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned about the fact that this school is

overcrowded. According to them, it was designed for 375 students. It is now

being forced to accommodate 500 in sixteen classes instead of twelve. What is

this government prepared to do to ensure that this kind of overcrowding will not

continue into the next school year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. It is an important question, and I am very

familiar with it.

Just to bring the hon. member up to date, approximately two or three weeks

ago I, along with my colleague, the Member for St. John's North, met with a

representative group from Leary's Brook school, members of the school council,

the school principal, and there were members of the school board. I was fully

briefed by this representative group, of the issues, some of which have been

alluded to by the hon. member, as they relate to this particular school today.

I understand there is a public meeting tonight. Tomorrow, personally, as

minister, along with the Member for St. John's North, I will be visiting Leary's

Brook school to see first-hand exactly the concerns that have been raised by the

parents and the representative group.

I have also undertaken, Mr. Speaker, to meet with representatives of that

group in a matter of several days after tomorrow's visit so we can discuss in

detail where, in fact, we go from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem, of course, it has been suggested that this government has

deferred any plans to put an extension on that school. I just want to quote back

to the minister, his comment about a year ago - on August 22, when he was

education critic - asking: Is the government going to, once again, wash its

hands of its responsibility for education by pretending that problems that arise

are board concerns that the government should not really have to deal with?

Mr. Speaker, in addition to meeting with those people, which I understand is

a very good thing for him to be doing - along with the member for the district -

is he prepared to commit himself to solving the problems of that school as a

result of the overcrowding that obviously exists? He is now obviously aware of

that problem, and does not need to meet with them to hear further, but only to

give them a proper answer. Is he going to commit to solving that problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I will commit to is ensuring that this particular issue receives every

possible attention that it deserves, and it deserves significant attention. I

will just reiterate my point to the hon. member, that we will take the proper

due diligence. We will meet with the appropriate individuals.

As I indicated, I am attending the school tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. We are

meeting with the representative group. In a few days, along with their member,

the Member for St. John's North, I will receive the appropriate information

and, in due course, the appropriate decision will be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I ask the minister: Given the fact that people in Labrador West are the only

people in Labrador who do not receive an air transportation subsidy when they

have to fly to Happy Valley-Goose Bay for medical services, or to St. Anthony,

depending on where you live, and that the people in Labrador West have to pay

$500 out of their own pocket verses other people in Labrador paying $40, I ask

the minister, when is she going to treat us all equally so that people in

Labrador West do not have to bear the exorbitant cost of getting medical

treatment when the rest of Labrador do not have to pay that cost?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I have answered that question in the House before. That program is

under review by the department. It is part of the program renewal process and we

will be making a decision at that time regarding all transportation subsidies in

Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that four members of the PC caucus - the Member for St.

John's West, the Member for St. John's North, the Member for St. John's

South, and the Member for St. John's Centre - along with the Mayor of St. John's,

are lobbying hard for amalgamation of St. John's with Mount Pearl, Paradise,

CBS and Torbay.

I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: What discussions have

taken place in terms of amalgamation, and does the minister share the same view

as the four members in his caucus?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. critic for his question. With respect to amalgamation of St.

John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, Torbay, whatever, Mr. Speaker, I can tell him

at this point in time that the policy of this Administration is there will be no

forced amalgamation. Everybody on this side of the House is free to have their

own views, if they were not in the previous Administration. Clearly, our policy

is no forced amalgamation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, recently this government proclaimed legislation

related to regional services boards in the Province. I ask the minister: Is this

the thin edge of the wedge? Is the plan to use this piece of legislation to

start the process of amalgamation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the proclamation of the regionalization legislation is

legislation that was in the House, on the books, since 1992, I believe, some

twelve to fourteen years. We implemented that, we proclaimed it, so we can set

up regional waste boards for waste management in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We have committees up on the Northern Peninsula, Western and

Central Newfoundland, and on the Avalon Peninsula, eager to go ahead with waste

management in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we were going to go down the road of amalgamation we would not even

proclaim that legislation because clearly, in the municipalities legislation

now, it gives the minister the wherewithal and the authority to amalgamate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary is to the Premier.

This Premier has a reputation for not keeping commitments he made during the

election. There are many examples of where he has done so. I ask the Premier, is

he getting ready to break his word once again? Will he break the commitment he

made to the Member for Mount Pearl that there would be no amalgamation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there will be no forced amalgamation, and

that is a commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party made a number of promises during the last

provincial election and they now seem to be walking away from most of them. They

made many promises in relation to health care, and all we have really seen is a

series of cuts and forced cost-saving measures without any real concern for what

the impact is on people.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is she aware that some

home care workers are not receiving the increases that they were supposed to

receive? I ask you, Minister: What is the problem and how do you intend to deal

with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of the situation that the hon. member has indicated but I will

take it under advisement and get back to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, that is usually the norm with this government.

They do not even see the problems when they do exist, but I will tell the

minister what the situation is. Government committed funding for a raise of pay

for home care workers, and the funding was supposed to be raised to $7.29 per

hour. We have had reports, and I have personally, from some people in the

Province, that some home support workers have not received this raise, Minister.

I ask you: How do you intend to deal with the problem and make sure that they

get the raise they were promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: As I indicated to the hon. member, I am not aware of the

situation that she raised; but, as indicated in my previous response, I will

investigate and I will get back to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I just want to re-emphasize to the minister that

these employees are some of the lowest paid workers in the Province in the

health care sector and the work that they do directly impacts on our senior

citizens and others who need help in their home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am hearing too much noise to my left.

The hon. the Member of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Given the commitments that you made in your Blue Book to senior citizens,

Minister, will you now tell the House what actions you will take to improve the

program and to ensure, now that you are aware of the situation, that these

workers get the raise that they were promised?

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to indicate to the hon. member that, as indicated in our Blue

Book, we have gone ahead and established - we are going to establish -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: - a division for seniors within the Department of Health

and Community Services. I have asked my Parliamentary Secretary to pursue that

and we will be reviewing all of the programs that we presently deliver to

seniors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In the absence of the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, my

questions today are for the first alternate, the Minister of Government

Services.

Mr. Speaker, recently the right-wing Conservative guillotine fell and severed

twenty HRE offices in rural areas of this Province. The minister, and I assume

members of the Conservative caucus, think this is good news. Fewer employees,

less services, and they think it is good news.

Will the minister stand today and confirm what was stated in the Estimates

Committee meeting, and confirm that this House did not do a comprehensive

cost-benefits analysis of impacts before those announcements were made, and that

three collection officers were hired for the St. John's offices? Is it true

that the minister really does not know how much money these office closures will

save, or even if they will save any money at all, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has said in this House on many occasions before that there is a

reduction of offices because we have 9,000 less cases. They can be more

efficiently administered there. Government is in the position of supplying

services to people, not in the position of creating jobs. We create the

necessary jobs to deliver the services. That is where it is to. Services are

important to people and accommodations are being made here because the main

reason, Mr. Speaker, is because there is a significant reduction in caseloads to

people there. It does not justify, with forty and fifty people in caseloads,

holding offices open. It is an unnecessary expense to government and it can be

accommodated without any loss of services from other regions of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port de

Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, a total respect for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister. Those answers are not very reassuring for

the people of this Province. I have to ask the minister: Why is it the offices

at Stephenville on the West Coast will undergo renovations to accommodate the

extra workers coming in while the offices at Carbonear will not be renovated and

will have two people working in the one office? Is it true that this government

has another agenda, that we will be downsizing again next year to four or five

regional offices? And, is it not true that all income support on the Avalon

Peninsula will be administered out of the offices in St. John's by September,

2005?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board. Time for a very short answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is carrying out and doing what is efficient; a program, by the

way, started by people on that side when they were in power. They initiated this

program but they did not have the fortitude, with an election coming, to do what

they wanted to do, wait until after the election. The reason for this is based

on logic. The same logic which that side of the House saw when they were here

and the same advice they had that we are going to move to an efficient operation

so we can have better use of taxpayers' dollars here and provide a level of

service to the people of this Province. That is what it is all about. That is

what they started. That is what they would not finish, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

During Question Period there was an expression used that the Chair found

objectionable. The expression was used by the Leader of the Opposition. I would

wait to get the Hansard but I think the expression was something like: to bribe

the Commissioner. I do believe that expression was used and I would defer,

probably, until we get the written report. I would like to give the Leader of

the Opposition an opportunity, if he wished to at this time - instead of waiting

until that time - to withdraw that comment.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a ruling that phrase is unparliamentary and has been ruled so in the

past?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair finds that expressions with that kind of - to

bribe somebody, whoever it is, would be ruled to be unparliamentary because it

would certainly indicate

an act that would amount to an illegal act on behalf of

somebody.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to check the tapes and if you

find it to be unparliamentary I will certainly apologize at that time, but I

would like for you to check the tapes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will check the tape and also check Hansard and

come back to the House on tomorrow.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. PARSONS: I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that on tomorrow we will be

proceeding on Private Members' Day with the motion followed by myself, as

Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, concerning the federal-provincial striking of

an all-party committee.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition from a group of people from Labrador West.

It relates to the question I asked earlier of the minister concerning the $40

air fares for people in other parts of Labrador to access health care in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay or St. Anthony while people in the District of Labrador West

have to pay nearly $500.

Mr. Speaker, for the government to address this issue on behalf of the people

of Labrador West, is the total cost, based on the numbers who use the hospital

in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, mostly for CT scans. I would say to the government,

that the cost of addressing the concerns for them is approximately $40,000 a

year. It is not a huge sum of money for a government to bear, but it is an

exorbitant amount of money for individuals who have to pay the cost out of their

own pockets, who do not have insurance plans that cover the cost of providing

that benefit. Many of these people in my district are travelling to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay to get CT scans. Many of the people who do that are cancer

patients who have to make more than one trip. More than one trip in a month

sometimes, Mr. Speaker. It adds up to a significant amount of money for these

patients to bear on their own, while it would not be a great deal of money for

this government to be able to put forward, that would treat the people in

Labrador West on the same basis as the other residents of Labrador West are

treated.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the other option that government has raised from time to

time is that we have a road link to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and we can drive, but

like I pointed out to the minister with the driver examiner, 1,200 kilometres

round trip over a gravel road to see a doctor or to get some type of surgery

performed is not the solution. It does not make sense for anyone to have to put

themselves through that. Indeed, many of the people that I am referring to in

this instance are not capable, because of their illness, of making a 1,200

kilometre round trip over that road simply to see a doctor.

We are not asking for favourable treatment, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking

that we be treated better than other people in other areas of the Province. What

we are asking is that we be treated equal within Labrador itself and that the

people of Labrador West, who find it necessary to have to travel to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, be able to do so at the same cost that other residents of

Labrador can do. Because one of the things that happens is when people from my

area go to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to get medical treatment, oftentimes - more

often than not - that necessitates another trip being made to the Health

Sciences Centre here in St. John's, which costs more money again. So, it is

important that this government recognize the fact that our access to health care

is based upon our financial ability. That is something that is certainly a flaw

in our system, where a person's health should not depend upon the amount of

money they have in the bank and that people within a region to a central health

care -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, people in one area, in a geographical area that

is used in a central hospital for a specific purpose, should not have to pay

significantly higher rates in order to obtain that service. I ask the minister,

on behalf of our government, to address this issue immediately and start

treating the people of Labrador West the same as people who live in other parts

of Labrador.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of

residents from Fogo Island in my District of Twillingate & Fogo. It pertains

to the raise in the ferry rates that we have just witnessed from the great

Minister of Finance in his Budget a little over a month ago.

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance did was completely to the contrary

of what his leader, the Premier, promised during the election, prior to and

during the election and in his Blue Book, as I said today, Mr. Speaker, because

in his visits to Fogo Island, prior to the election and during the election, he

promised all those who asked him the question pertaining to ferry rates that he

would indeed eliminate ferry rates and bring the cost of transportation by water

in line with that which it would cost on road transportation. The residents of

Fogo Island, Mr. Speaker, to say that they were somewhat displeased or

disgruntled or dissatisfied with the Finance Minister's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are too many conversations going on in the Chamber. It is difficult for

the Chair to be able to concentrate on the commentary of the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very noisy here. I do not know what the members opposite have been

doing this weekend, but it is very noisy.

Mr. Speaker, to say that the residents of Fogo Island were somewhat

displeased and disgruntled over this, you can understand why they would be. The

fact of the matter is, when the Premier of a province makes you a promise, or

the leader of a party at the time makes you a promise, face to face, and then a

few months later the Minister of Finance and the same government that is being

led by the Premier gets up and breaks that promise, and not only does he not

reduce the ferry rates but then he says he is going to increase them by 25 per

cent, I say that is absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in Question Period, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works,

and Aboriginal Affairs, a question pertaining to ferry rates, and he got up and

he waxed eloquently about the reason he did it being the financial state of the

Province, and that they did not know this prior to the election.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself is supposed to be known, at least

Province-wide, for his business acumen. He is supposed to be a Rhodes Scholar.

He sat in this House of Assembly for three years, and examined the books that

were presented each year. At that time he still made the promises.

We also have the Minister of Health, who was the Auditor General for ten

years. For anyone out there who does not know what the Auditor General's job

is, she was the woman who came into every government department, examined every

cent that was spent by each of these departments, so she, more than anyone else

in this House, would have known the exact financial shape the Province was in

when they were running for election back in October.

Then we have a Minister of Finance today, who sat as the critic over here for

seven or eight years for Finance. Each year he went into in-depth analysis of

the Budget for the Province, so he knew exactly what the finances of the

Province were. So, to get up in the House of Assembly and say - when I use the

word he was using - excuses, that is all they were, because to get up in the

House of Assembly and actually -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: - admit that they did not know the state of the finances, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. REID: - only admits that they were not very intelligent to begin

with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It pays to stay on your toes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition from the residents of my

district, from Carbonear, and the students of St. Joseph's, St. Francis and

Davis Elementary.

Mr. Speaker, it is May 25 and we have reached a point where there is so much

uncertainty, the only thing that is guaranteed that we can figure out is that

St. Joseph's is going to close, students transferred to Davis Elementary and

to St. Francis in Harbour Grace, with no funding allocated - from what I

understand, and from what the parents are led to believe - to do the necessary

renovations that would accommodate the students in September.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, summer goes very quickly in Newfoundland and

Labrador, especially when plans are not made to made sure that necessary

renovations - the money is not put aside for necessary renovations. We know from

past experiences in this Province, where we have a limited workforce, if

companies have a lot of work garnered up for themselves for the summer, maybe

the plan, if there is a plan, to renovate the schools at Davis and at St.

Francis, just will not get done in time for September.

The parents, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned about what conditions await

their students in September. They are worried about air quality, they are

worried about the classroom sizes when extra students are brought in, and they

are worried about the eating facilities. Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue

when this kind of thing troubles parents of small children.

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear today that the minister is going to visit

Leary's Brook here in St. John's. I certainly hope that he takes his

visiting a little bit further around the Avalon to Carbonear and Harbour Grace

and have a look at the three facilities that I have been mentioning here for the

past number of weeks, and witness first-hand the conditions of St. Joseph's

and Davis Elementary and, of course, St. Francis School in Harbour Grace. He

would come quickly to understand that the schools are not ready and they are not

suitable to accommodate the students who are going to be brought there in

September.

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday another motorcade was held in Carbonear. Again,

each time that this is planned and organized, the motorcade gets bigger. It is

followed up by a giant rally at the school. The response from the parents and

the students, they are just frustrated with the lack of action. Granted, Mr.

Speaker, I have tried to use the argument that this was done by a board that was

elected by the parents; but, they are saying, so is the decision to close St.

Mary's in St. John's, done by a board that was elected by the parents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to conclude.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the parents themselves find it very hard to

understand why it cannot be changed because there is a new board in place.

Mr. Speaker, I do ask the minister to talk to the new board, visit the

schools in the area, and see first-hand for himself what the conditions of those

schools are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from people in Labrador, with

regard to the Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that is being circulated in Western Labrador,

Central Labrador, in Southern Labrador and Northern Labrador. It has to do with

the Sir Robert Bond services being based in Lewisporte this year as

opposed to Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who have signed these particular petitions - and

there will be a number of them presented over the next weeks in the House of

Assembly - are not happy with the fact that the number of scheduled stops into

Goose Bay will be decreasing this year. They feel that it is an inconvenience.

Mr. Speaker, they are also not pleased with the fact that more money will come

out of the Labrador Transportation Fund to pay for a passenger service to

Lewisporte, which they feel there is no need of.

Mr. Speaker, I attended, this morning, the session that was held by the ferry

representatives from all over the Province at the Holiday Inn. I had an

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to listen to their views, as people who represent

municipalities and communities, and they are not happy. They are not happy,

first of all, because the government made a commitment that they would not

increase ferry rates in this Province but instead went ahead and increased them

up to 25 per cent over the next couple of years.

The people in this room representing municipalities across the Province are

very upset by that action, Mr. Speaker. They feel that they took the word of

this government and then they were let down, and they were led to believe there

would be no increases when indeed there were increases.

Mr. Speaker, they also had a great deal of discussion around the Labrador

Marine Services, and the fact that the Minister of Transportation and Works made

a decision that went against the recommendations of a consultant's report, a

report that government commissioned and asked for advice on, and then they

ignored that advice. That was a big topic of discussion by the municipalities

this morning as well.

Mr. Speaker, I attended the Viking Trail Tourism annual meeting over the

weekend and one of the topics of discussion there was Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, I could not believe when the Member for St. Barbe stood up in that

meeting and said that he supported keeping the Sir Robert Bond in

Cartwright and that he had made representation to his government, wanting the Sir

Robert Bond kept in Cartwright, because he knew that moving it to Lewisporte

would have a negative impact upon his own district.

Mr. Speaker, I admire the Member for St. Barbe, for standing up to say that

at the annual meeting of the VTTA, but I would encourage him to continue to

stand up on that issue because that is an injustice that is being done to not

just the people in Labrador but to the people on the Northern Peninsula as well.

If you feel that strongly about it, he should continue to make his views known

and his representation known, not just at the Viking Trail annual meeting, when

he is in his district and among his constituents, but in his caucus as well, and

in the public, and let people know what his views are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that this is an issue that we feel very strongly about in

Labrador. We feel that government has made the wrong decision. We will continue

to protest the decision of the minister and the government. We will continue to

lobby to have the Labrador ferry service based in Labrador, for the benefit of

the people of Labrador, and ensure that the money that is in the Transportation

Fund is used wisely and to the best interest and to the greatest benefit of all

people in Labrador and not to appease the political agenda of the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Orders of the Day, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is it?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today; and, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11

that the House not adjourn at 10 o'clock this evening.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we will move to Orders of the Day, Order 1, and ask

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the

Estimates - Consolidated Fund Services and Executive Council.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

The Government House Leader moves pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the

House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 25.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: We have Motion 5 moved by the Government House Leader,

pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10 o'clock today,

Tuesday, May 25.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay'.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand that we are now moving to Committee of Supply?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for

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

motions relative to Committee of Supply.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House

to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said numbered bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.'

The motion is carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Today, we will be continuing debate on the headings under Executive Council

in the Estimates book 2004.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is lots to ask and debate about this particular section. I would like

to begin my questions today to the President of Treasury Board and Minister of

Finance regarding Executive Council.

It is interesting that the minister said on Thursday that he was going to be

looking at a $3 million decrease over last year's budget for that particular

category, even though I might stress here today that the budget that was

predicted for 2003-2004 was $33,837,000. I think what he neglected to mention

was the fact that the actual budget came in at $30,357,000. That was not

mentioned at all, but it is definitely worth mentioning. The new government's

prediction for this coming year for the budget for the total of Executive

Council, Treasury Board, is $30,714,000 under subhead 3.1.09 for the final

totals on that particular heading.

I wonder what would indicate the increase in that area of $357,000 for the

overall budget in a year of restraint and hard times, as he calls it? Even

though the minister is quick on his feet to say that there is going to be a $3

million decrease, he neglected to say that only $30 million was actually spent

last year. This particular new government is going to spend almost $400,000 more

than was spent last year. He neglected to say that, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board if he would outline for this House what his plan is this year for the

Premier's travel. We all know that the Premier's travel comes under several

categories of this budget. The first one would be the Premier's Office, and

that would be under heading 2.1.01.03., Transportation and Communications, and

that would be $231,700 under that particular category. Of course then we have,

under the Ottawa Office, Transportation and Communications, $55,000, and that

would fall under category 2.3.04.03., Transportation and Communications, $55,000

there for the Ottawa Office.

We all know that the Premier also is the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs. I would also like to ask the President of Treasury Board, under the

category 2.3.01., Intergovernmental Affairs, Transportation and Communications,

$50,000 under that heading. Then, in addition to that, under Protocol, 2.2.05,

Transportation and Communications, another $85,000 under category 03.

These are four areas of the Premier's travel that needs to be responded to

on what the Premier is planning this year. Of course, under 2.6.01 Rural

Secretariat - there is a category too under Transportation and Communications

under Rural Secretariat. Transportation and Communications under Rural

Secretariat would be $152,300. Now, I do not know if the -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am not saying what - there are four categories now that the

Premier can travel under. He can travel directly under the Premier's Office.

He can travel under the Ottawa office. He can travel under Protocol. He can

travel under Intergovernmental Affairs and he can travel under Rural

Secretariat. I am just wondering what the plans are for travel for the Premier?

When the Minister of Finance actually gets up on his feet and tells us that.

There must be some important plans being made. I am sure that he will have an

explanation, once he gets a chance to stand up. I know the Premier has said that

he plans to do good things with the Ottawa office. Right now it is a mystery. Of

course, I neglected to mention, I guess, the Premier's new Department of

Business. There is $750,000 there that has not been identified as to what or how

that particular budget will be spent. So, it will be interesting when we find

out that.

I know under Protocol, the Minister of Finance said under Purchased Services,

2.2.05.06, $142,000. Last year there was $130,000 spent, but in this year of

restraint I would like for the minister to outline what will actually be

purchased or how this money will be spent?

I would also like to go back now to salaries. I notice that in Executive

Council, even though - if we look at Executive Council, Executive Support. In

Salaries under Executive Support, 2.2.01.01, Salaries are listed at $856,900,

but in actual fact when you look at the Salary Details they are actually listed

as $979,599. So, I would like for the minister to explain if there is some

overtime or if there is temporary help or if there are positions that are

currently vacant or new people are coming on. I would like to hear from the

minister on that section.

I would also like to hear about Economic and Social Policy Analysis; very

important part of Cabinet. I notice that the total for Executive Support,

Economic and Social Policy Analysis, and Protocol is $1.3 million in salaries

alone. I would like for the minister to make comments on that one, if he would.

I want to also ask in Economic and Social Policy Analysis, 2.2.02, Salaries have

increased over last year's budget for $90,500. I would like for the minister

to be able to tell this House: Why have Salaries increased of $90,500?

It is interesting that people outside are wondering why we are actually

asking the same questions day after day and I would have to say to the people

watching and the people who might listen to various media, we are asking the

questions because this is our job. We are the Members of the Official

Opposition, and if we ask questions everyday on how the public money is being

spent, we are doing our jobs. Although it might sound repetitious at times, the

reason for that is most days we do not get an answer. Most days we do not get a

proper answer from the government on how money is actually being spent. We more

or less hear a spin. So if people outside are wondering why we are asking the

same questions, it is because we want the right answers and we have to continue

to do that on a daily basis.

I was looking at an

article that appeared in The Western Star on

Thursday, May 20. It was written by one of the editors of The Western Star .

It was called the Sad Saga of the Tory Budget. This is part of the Budget that

we are doing today, a very important part. It involves the Cabinet, Treasury

Board, Executive Council, the Premier's Office, and all of those areas. The

article in The Western Star went like this: Oops, the provincial

government is forced to apologize. Why are they apologizing? They are

apologizing because some of the information that they had generated as part of

the Budget was later found out to be inaccurate. I find that kind of startling

because I know, personally, after being a Cabinet Minister in three different

portfolios, you can really depend on the reliability of the bureaucrats. The

bureaucrats, whenever they give you some piece of information, I can tell you,

they have their homework done, and it does not just pass through one set of

hands; it passes through many sets of hands.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know I will have a chance very shortly to continue.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will let her back up again very shortly. I just want to mention to her,

just to set the record straight on a few things, she is under the impression

that the Premier of this Province is going to go around and take transportation

and communications costs out of various other departments. She should know that

the former government, and I was Chair of Public Accounts, the Auditor General

found out that the Premier of the Province, her leader, was charging costs off

to numerous departments, not only under travel but in other items, purchased

supplies, everything, to fund the Premier's travel. When they got caught by

the Auditor General, raised by the Public Accounts, then they reversed those

costs, and that is in the public record, in the record of the Public Accounts.

We had officials there from government.

What the Premier is doing now, he is going to use his travel and

communications costs within the areas where it is budgeted. We are not going to

hide it in Innovation, Trade and Rural Development or Municipal Affairs. We are

not going to hide it in Transportation and Works. We are going to make it

transparent. He is not going to do travelling out of the Rural Secretariat. That

is the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development's responsibility.

As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs there is only one item, I think, in

the minister's office there. He is the minister. If there is travel to be done

there, he will do it there if it is necessary. The Premier's Office, that is

where it is coming from. It is not coming from areas that the hon. member is

saying. The Ottawa office is for the individual that happens to be appointed

there, or any transportation associated with it.

The Premier's travel is Premier's travel, and that is what he is going to

do. He is not going to do what was done before. It would almost take a team of

accountants to come in and be able to find out where the Premier's travel was

buried, and that is a fact. Anybody who has served on Public Accounts - and

there are four on that side of the House who sat on it with me, and three from

this side of the House - they would know that. That got reversed after the

Auditor General highlighted that, and now it is being done.

We want to do it up front. If it is staff in the Premier's Office - what

happened before was, there were staff in the Premier's Office working out of

other departments, charged to other departments but working in the Premier's

Office. We want to set the record straight. We do not want to be going under

that veil of secrecy, over in other departments, charged to other departments

but working out of the Premier's Office.

We are different. It is going to be done differently. Just because it was

done before, the hon. member does not have any right to assume that it is now

being done, because she is absolutely wrong on that issue. I just want to clear

the record on it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to take my ten minutes and speak to the Estimates of Executive

Council, but in particular I want to speak to the Rural Secretariat. As critic

for Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, I have some concerns, obviously,

about a Secretariat that seems to be enigma. Nobody knows quite what it is about

or what it is going to do. From what I can gather here, we are looking at the

Strategic Social Plan, I suppose, in a sense that it seems to be that what was

once called the Strategic Social Plan is now the Rural Secretariat.

When I look at the amount of funding that is allocated, I am concerned

because I do know what the Strategic Social Plan was all about. It was an

innovative idea. It was, in fact, a commitment by the previous Administration

that was looked upon by the rest of the country as an ideal way to go in dealing

with issues, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, when I realized that the Strategic Social Plan was no longer

referenced in the Estimates and then found out that it is, in fact, now the

Rural Secretariat, I guess my questions were around: Well, what is the

difference between the Rural Secretariat and the Strategic Social Plan?

Then, when I look at the Estimates of the Office of Executive Council and

that particular heading, the Rural Secretariat, I see that, in fact, the budget

overall, there was a $2 million budget there under the previous Administration

for the Strategic Social Plan, and now I see that the heading, which is the

Rural Secretariat, in fact, there is $1.7 million there. You are talking a

reduction of $300,000 in terms of being able to carry out the mandate of the

Rural Secretariat - in other words, the Strategic Social Plan. That causes me

concern, as I know it does other people around rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I am hearing is that people really are not quite sure what the mandate of

the Rural Secretariat is. They know that as part of the Strategic Social Plan

they knew exactly what the Strategic Social Plan was all about. They knew what

the mandate was and they knew what they had to do, in fact, to fulfill that

mandate, but people are telling me, people now who are involved with Innovation,

Trade and Rural Development, and other leaders in rural Newfoundland, they are

not quite sure if, in fact, the Rural Secretariat does have the same mandate as

the Strategic Social Plan. They are a little confused by it all. I guess the

fact that you have taken what was the Strategic Social Plan and now called it

the Rural Secretariat, they are not quite sure what the difference is or why the

name change.

The other thing, of course, if you look at the Estimates, it is in the Office

of Executive Council instead of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development. That has been an issue for them as well because if you are going to

call it the Rural Secretariat - and I know that the Minister of Innovation,

Trade and Rural Development certainly has referenced it in our Estimates that we

talked about, but what I am hearing from people in rural Newfoundland, those who

are concerned with rural development and revitalizing rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, they do not understand why it is not positioned within the department

and instead it is under Executive Council and the Estimates for it are under

Executive Council.

We are talking a Rural Secretariat that replaces the Strategic Social Plan,

or at least replaces it in name. We are not quite sure, so there is confusion in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular about that. The fact that the

budget for it has been reduced by $300,000, there is significant concern there

because, of course, if you look at the Estimates you see the salaries. The

salaries are about the same, but I guess the question I would have for whomever

wants to answer it, either the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development or the Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering questions with

respect to the Estimates, would be the Employee Benefits section. I notice that,

in fact, last year the budget for it was $5,500 and the revised was also $5,500,

but today we are looking at Employee Benefits of $300. I cannot understand the

difference in the number, which is significant, so I guess I would ask either of

the ministers to explain to me the difference there, why we would have salaries

that are essentially the same, but when you look at Employee Benefits we are

down from $5,500 to $300? I put that question out there to get an answer to

before the day is out.

When I look at Transportation and Communications for the Rural Secretariat,

again we see a significant drop there in the amount of money allocated for those

two very important functions of any entity in government, your transportation

and your communications, but especially for the Rural Secretariat because

clearly the name itself, as it implies, is all about rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. We know, if you are going to deal with some of the issues that are

confronting us in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you need to be out around

rural Newfoundland and Labrador to do that. You cannot do that from St. John's,

any more than you can do it from Corner Brook. You really do have to get out

into the smaller communities, in fact, the heart of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and that is rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So, if you make a decision to cut

the Transportation and Communications heading of that particular Rural

Secretariat then, of course, that is cause for concern.

Overall, when we are looking down over the budget for the Rural Secretariat

and we see a reduction of $300,000, that is, in fact, a 15 per cent decrease

which is of concern. Of course, we have seen cuts across the board by this

government in all areas, and some very unwisely. I would suggest that this is

one, in fact, in which they did not really act appropriately, if in fact they

want to focus on rural Newfoundland, if, as they say, it is important to them

and they want to try and revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I look at the Transportation and Communications aspect of the budget for

the Rural Secretariat, the drop is significant there. In fact, you are talking

about $90,000 less for Transportation and Communications for the Rural

Secretariat.

The other heading that concerns me is Professional Services. We have all

found out over the years in trying to work with people in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, whether we are doing it through the REDBs or now through the Rural

Secretariat as well, that it is really important to avail of those with

expertise and those who can give some advice on how best to move forward in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am looking here at Professional Services and

I am seeing that in 2003-2004 it had given a budgeted amount of $94,300. In

fact, the revised budget for Professional Services was $104,900, and today we

are looking at $12,800. That is a significant reduction in the amount of money

that has been allocated for Professional Services for the Rural Secretariat.

What can you get for $12,800? What can you do for that amount of money? I would

put forward that you can do very little in the way of professional services. So,

I have some concerns there as well. I am hoping, again, that either of the

ministers will stand and speak to that and explain why such a significant

decrease in the amount of money that has been allocated in this budget for

Professional Services for the Rural Secretariat.

The other area where we see a significant reduction is in Grants and

Subsidies. That is really troubling. We budgeted last year $240,000 for Grants

and Subsidies. Revised, it was $205,000 that was spent, but today we are looking

at $200,000. So, again, a significant reduction because, of course, $40,000 to

someone or some group, or some organization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador

is significant to them. Again, I would question why the reduction there. Of all

areas where you have made choices to cut, this was probably one of the most

troubling ones for a lot of people, particularly in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. A lot of those who are in leadership positions in the rural parts of

our Province, in fact, look to the government to work with them to help

revitalize. We all know how difficult it is to access funding sometimes for

various programs and services and various organizations that want to get

involved and try to make a difference in Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of

them avail of these grants and subsidies.

Again, I put the question out there because I think it is important that

people understand how that money is going to be given out and who can access the

grants and subsidies. The strategic social plan is now the Rural Secretariat,

if, in fact, there has been a change in terms of who can apply for those grants

and subsidies; what they are meant to do. How they are to be spent, in other

words, by anyone who would be successful in accessing that money. Overall, I

have to say it is troubling. Again, I think about the Regional Economic

Development Boards out there, and we all know that we have people serving on

those boards who are serving on a volunteer basis. They represent stakeholders

from throughout the Province, whether it is the education sector, the business

sector, municipalities, and so on and so forth. We know that the REDBs have been

very instrumental in working with government, both levels of government by the

way - or three levels, I should say - but the funding has come from both the

federal and provincial governments. In fact, the funding -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Permission to just clue up, if I may?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS FOOTE: Just to again reiterate, that for the REDBs we know that the

majority of the funding came from the federal government. In fact, it is 70-30.

The municipalities, of course, were not required to put any money in for the

REDBs. So at the end of the day, I think we have the REDBs there. Now we have

the Rural Secretariat. I guess there is some confusion out there in terms of

what role each is going to play in trying to revitalize rural Newfoundland and

Labrador and work with the leadership in our smaller communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, perhaps I should address the reduction in the budget, which is

approximately $300,000. Mr. Chair, last year the Social Strategic Plan spent

$110,000 less than had been budgeted. So what we are talking about, in fact, is

approximately a $190,000 reduction in that budget. There are a number of reasons

for that, Mr. Chair. The primary one would be that community accounts have now

been developed and implemented and do not require the same kind of funding that

was required in order to set them up.

With regard to the specific questions raised by the Member for Grand Bank.

Under Employee Benefits, usually employee benefits refers to membership and

conference registration fees for provincial office community account staff, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency and regional planners and support

staff in the six regions. Given that we have restraint measures at the moment,

any expenses related to employee benefits for the next year will be paid through

regional allocations based on priority.

With regard to Transportation and Communications. The Premier's Council on

social development met only twice in 2003-2004 and no travel funds are allocated

for the council for 2004-2005. Assessment of timing and frequency of steering

committee meetings to ensure maximum budget efficiency and to ensure

participation of steering committee members across the region are being looked

at. For example, the Cormack region are now having their meetings every six

weeks and are using video conferencing. So the same amount of travel is not

required.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes. The travel, yes.

With regard to Professional Services, extra consultation was required based

on the priority set in 2003-2004 to conduct Phase III of the social audit. The

consultant, Jane Helleur & Associates Inc. were contracted to complete the

learning study. That work is now complete, and accounts for the decrease in the

budget there.

Under Grants and Subsidies, as the member knows, the SSP was never a funding

organization nor will the Rural Secretariat be. However, some funds were made

available under Grants and Subsidies to allow the SSPs to partner with other

organizations to do research on community projects. We did some research back in

March. (Inaudible) with all the SSP committees and there was substantial funding

still left in their budgets. They are using that funding now. So the work of the

SSP is ongoing.

The broader questions of the Rural Secretariat. The Strategic Social Plan has

been rolled over into the Rural Secretariat. This is a transitional year for us.

During the year as we develop the Rural Secretariat, the work of the Strategic

Social Plan is ongoing. I have met with all the Chairs of the Strategic Social

Plan. Their work is ongoing as it has done in years past.

This government believes that social and economic development are

interdependent and they must occur at the same time. What we are doing in the

Rural Secretariat is allowing the committees in the six regions of the Province

to put an economic lens on the regions as well as a social lens to gather

information, to do research, to carry out analysis on social and economic issues

affecting rural Newfoundland and Labrador; to carry out research on economic and

social issues affecting their relationship - the rural communities - with the

urban centres in the Province and how we can live together, and to form a

committee out of that that will not only advise government, but be able to come

into government and effect policy in its development and programming in its

development and implementation. It is a much broader mandate than was held by

the Social Strategic Plan.

I have met, as I said, with the Chairs of the Strategic Social Plan

committees who are very excited by this development and see that it is a natural

evolution of where we need to go. I am in the process of meeting with Regional

Economic Development Boards who will continue to exist in their own right but

will also contribute and be part of this larger piece of work. As we work these

relationships with all of these partners, as well as municipalities and other

stakeholders, practicing the touchstones of inclusion, capacity building and

partnerships, that at the end of this year we will have a Rural Secretariat who

will be able to advise government, from a grassroots point of view, on the

social and economic needs of rural Newfoundland and affect policy at its very

development.

Than you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask some questions now on another department that the Premier

is responsible for, and that would be Intergovernmental Affairs.

Intergovernmental Affairs - it is called the Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat. Of course, naturally, the object of an Intergovernmental Affairs

Department is to foster and improve the relationship of the provincial

government with the federal government. The object also is to have more of a

say, and get more results on the five items, I suppose, that we have all been

very interested in over many years. That would be: getting a better deal, of

course, on equalization; getting a better deal on our Atlantic Accord; having a

commitment, a long-term commitment, on 5 Wing Goose Bay; having a commitment for

more health care spending - it appears now that this will be one of the planks

of the Liberal Party campaign that is now currently underway - and, of course, a

better deal on post-secondary education, unlike what we have seen here over the

past few days, since March 30, when this government decided to slash and cut the

budget for post-secondary education.

Under Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, it is interesting that the

Premier now is taking over the responsibility as the Minister for

Intergovernmental Affairs; that is one job that he is going to do. He is taking

over the job as the Minister of a new Department of Business.; that is another

job that he is going to do; and, he is the Premier. Of course, that is three

areas that he is going to be directly involved in. Naturally, the minister's

office would not carry a salary because he already gets the salary as being the

Premier, so none of us would expect him to have a salary from that office, but

it is interesting, under 2.3.01., under Transportation and Communications, which

I pointed out earlier, there is $50,000 there that the Premier will have

available to him when he travels in that capacity.

It is also very interesting to note under Executive Support, under that

particular department, 2.3.02.03., $121,000. Now, I would like to know from the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board how that money will be

spent. Will it be spent travelling from here to Ottawa to actually go and visit

the Ottawa office? Because, there is another category.

It is interesting that I have always said the devil is in the details. Of

course, it is what is not said that is very interesting throughout this whole

budget exercise, particularly when you look at the Ottawa office, that has a

starting figure of $350,000 a year. There is also Transportation and

Communications from that particular office of $55,000, and that will fall under

the heading of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. That is very interesting.

Under the same department, there is Policy Analysis and Coordination. This is

where the bureaucrats get in and do their work and make sure that any policies

that are developed by the government, they make a strong case when they are

bringing their case to Ottawa that what they are saying is correct, unlike what

has happened in the past month in the provincial Budget that was brought down

when we found that the Minister of Government Services had made a huge error in

her budget department and had to make some re-tracking herself.

What we are finding out now is under Policy Analysis and Coordination, the

salaries alone for that section, that would be bureaucrats and their Salaries

budget there for bureaucrats of $605,000. Now, last year it was $551,000 so they

must be hiring somebody new or there is some position there not filled that is

going to be filled. Even under that one, there is Transportation and

Communications of $79,000 so that is more travel.

I would like to go back to Executive Support, 2.3.02. Now, I understand that

there is going to be a New England Governors' Conference and I know that is

not going to take up $277,000. It would be interesting to find out how much it

is actually going to cost. Then you look at Grants and Subsidies, $320,000. I

would like to know who is going to be getting grants and subsidies out of that

office; because, if you want to look at the actual - there is another

department, too, that the Premier is going to head up. It is a bit of a mystery

at this point, but we do know that there is $1 million going to spent for the

new Department of Business. Under that particular heading there is another

$35,000 worth of travel that the Premier can use there. The Executive Support,

who will work in the Department of Business, that is unknown at this point, has

$50,000 that they can use. Then, under Business Attraction, there is $725,000.

None of us have any idea of what they money will be used for, but we did try to

find out. We did try to have a meeting, an Estimates meeting with our Premier.

In fact, we tried many times to

schedule it so that it would not interfere with

his travel and his meetings that he was having in Europe. We offered to actually

have that Estimates Committee any time that was convenient for him, but he did

not see fit to accommodate us in trying to get this information. The total of

that Business Department is $1 million.

It is interesting, too, when you look under Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat, there was a category last year for the Royal Commission on Renewing

and Strengthening Our Place in Canada. Now, that actual Commission cost $3

million in total, for government to find out whether or not our place in Canada

is our rightful place. There was a lot of good debate and dialogue and meetings

and a chance for people all around our Province, both within and outside our

Province, to have their say and let us know what is right and what is wrong.

That whole Commission cost $3 million.

It is interesting that in last year's budget we, as a former

Administration, budgeted $3 million for that particular Commission to take

place. Now, that Commission has their work concluded. There is no work now that

needs to be done by that Commission, so, in actual fact, there should be no

expense connected with it at all. In fact, last year there was $1.2 million

budgeted for that particular part of their work, but there was roughly $750,000

of that used. In actual fact, $750,000 should come off that final total at the

bottom. Instead of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, the whole department,

costing the taxpayers of this Province $2 million, it should only cost the

taxpayers of this Province, $1 million.

Really, in essence, what is happening here today is that the Minister of

Finance, the President of Treasury Board, has said that in the previous year the

former Administration budgeted $33 million for this particular running of

Executive Council when, in actual fact, there was $30 million spent, not $33

million. I think that is important to note. If you were following that logic,

the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat should only cost $1 million and not $2

million as is reported.

What is missing from this whole scenario is the fact that the new government

is actually spending more money, because more money is in the areas that I have

indicated. That is in the Ottawa office for certain, it is in Executive Support,

and it is in Policy Analysis and Coordination. It is no trouble to find out, for

those who want to pick up the Estimates booklet and the salary booklet, they can

find that out easy enough.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall headings 1.1.01 to 3.1.09 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

MS THISTLE: I heard the minister ask a question.

CHAIR: The Chair did not recognize the minister. There was nobody

standing, and the Chair asked if the House was ready for the question and called

the headings. There was no intervening speaker, I say to the hon. Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans.

Shall the headings 1.1.01 to 3.1.09 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

Are there any other speakers on the heading of Executive Council?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

There is an opportunity, I guess, Mr. Chairperson, to talk about aspects of

the budget under Executive Council. One of the reasons the Official Opposition

have, for the last week to week-and-a-half, talked about what a waste of money

an intergovernmental office will be in the City of Ottawa. What a terrible

waste. What will we be using it for? Why is there a necessity to have a

provincial office in the nation's capital?

We answer it this way: First of all, I think we have to intimately and

ultimately understand how important the relationship between provinces and the

federal government is. For example, there are divisions within certain

departments in the federal government whose budget is bigger, or two to three

times our own provincial budget. The opportunities for procurement activities,

for engineering companies, for local businesses, for R and D, these are

opportunities that we have not taken advantage of in the last twenty-five to

thirty years the way that we could have or should have taken advantage of. We

have watched and stood by other provinces, while other provinces in the country

- for example, two western provinces share an office in the nation's capital.

They staff it, and have for over a decade.

MR. REID: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo asks, why? Because it

works for them. The success of that office for their provinces has ultimately

worked. It has worked in more R and D; it has worked very well in terms of

federal-provincial issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nunavut has an office.

MR. E. BYRNE: Nunavut, exactly, the new territory in the country.

Nunavut.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: A full-time office.

While I have listened intently to members opposite talk about: Well, what do

you need $350,000 to open an office for anyway? What is the Premier going to

spend that on? You know, maybe he will be there the middle of June. Maybe he

will have to take a $50 taxi. Maybe it will be the Minister of Transportation

and Works in July. Maybe it will the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Labrador Affairs, signing an agreement that gives us joint custodial management

because we are in the federal government's face. Maybe it will the member and

Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs signing a new roads agreement that

will see significant money put into the infrastructure of the Province, which

communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador want. Maybe that is what it will

be used for. Maybe it will be the Member for Lake Melville who will be up

negotiating a new agreement with ministers on behalf and with ministers in the

government to ensure that 5 Wing Goose Bay survives beyond 2006. Maybe that is

what that office will do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Maybe it will be, I say, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of

Health who, after this federal election, if all leaders federally, the Liberal,

Conservative and New Democrat, whoever gets elected, if all of them are making a

commitment to put significant money into the health care system, maybe in

October or November the Minister of Health, along with the Premier and the

Minister of Finance, may be up signing an agreement in our Ottawa office that

will put $200 million to $250 million back into the coffers of the Province.

That is why it is required. That is why we believe in it. It has proven to be

successful in other jurisdictions. It has proven its worth for other provinces.

Surely, out of a $4 billion Budget, a little over $4 billion, this initiative is

manifested in a belief that we have, as a party and as government, that if we

are going to be in the business of federal-provincial relations then we have to

be where the federal government is, and that is in the nation's capital, day

in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out, because

that is where we need to be on that sort of basis, in their face. It is no good

every now and then to send an all-party committee from the House once in a while

on a specific issue. We are up and back, and that is it. People are saying: yes

sir, no sir, yes madam, no madam to us. It is a great show, and important as

sometimes they have been. The fact of the matter is, that it demonstrates a

long-term commitment to the process of what this government feels is important.

We believe that we can capture significant opportunities for local

businesses. We believe that we can capture significant export opportunities for

businesses. We believe we can capture significant market opportunities, overseas

and international, for businesses. We believe that we can capture significant

social and infrastructure opportunities for the people of the Province. We

believe, fundamentally, that if you are going to build a Province, and if you

are going to build a Province where people want to come and invest, then

government's role is to build that infrastructure. Part of building that

infrastructure, and the necessity to build that infrastructure in today's

world, in the country today, from a pan-Canadian point of view, if we are going

to do this properly, then we must also come to the absolute recognition, and I

mean absolute recognition, that it will be done through the federal-provincial

process.

The days are over when 100 per cent funding programs are offered carte

blanche, as were done in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The new reality of

federal-provincial relations today - the only reality that we need to deal with

is the one by where we can forge relationships, navigate those relationships,

end up in federal-provincial sorts of agreements that give this Province the

opportunity to improve the economic, social, cultural, and historic well-being

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that give businesses, private

men and women, who each and everyday are doing their level best to create jobs

and wealth for the people of the Province, that we can provide to them some

voice and some opportunity so that they too can take advantage of their

government's initiative. That is the reason why we feel so empowered and so

committed to an office in the nation's capital, because we believe that

ultimately it will pay off and we would not be in the business of putting

$350,000 in a budget, as members suggest opposite, so that the Premier can

travel. Surely, surely, surely we are a little bit bigger than that to

understand the concepts behind what we are trying to do.

I said early, several weeks ago in this House, that if I listened to the

Opposition each and every one of us in the government would have to walk in

through the door and get our horns and tails. The fact of the matter is, that

this is a government that is new. This is a government that is trying new

initiatives, and this happens to be one of them. I am not ashamed of it. I am

proud of it, and if we need to fix it at some point or tweak it to make it

better, than we will not be ashamed to do that either. But, the fact of it is

this, that the reason why we have done it are the reasons why I have outlined

it. The reasons why it is in the Budget is the reasons - because that is the

Premier's view that he has expressed during the election. This is the view

that he wanted to move forward on, and that is the endorsement he got. The fact

of the matter is, Mr. Chair, we believe that over time the proof will be in the

pudding on this very important initiative.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Government House Leader, great sermon, no substance.

It is fine for him to stand here today and wax eloquently about the need to

have an office in Ottawa so that the members opposite, the Premier and his

Cabinet can be in the faces of the people in Ottawa, the decision makers in

Ottawa. The only thing that I find sad about all of this is that the people from

Fogo Island, the people from Change Islands, the people from Twillingate Island,

the people from New World Island do not have an office in St. John's so that

they can be in the faces of the members opposite everyday. Maybe then they would

not be losing their social services offices. Maybe then they would not be

getting increases in their ferry rates like we have been witnessing in the last

few days. Maybe then we would not see hospital beds closing, no roads being done

or anything else that you promised before the election. So do not stand here

today and lecture us on the importance of an office in Ottawa. The importanc