April 3, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 10

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we call Statements by Members, the Chair would like to welcome to the

gallery today six Level II students from J.C. Erhardt Memorial in Makkovik, in

the District of Torngat Mountains, and they are accompanied by their teacher,

Ms. Brenda Butler.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each year the federal government puts out five awards under the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency, called the President's National Award, in recognition of

members in various communities.

The award is given to employees who promote a spirit of co-operation, mutual

respect and responsibility, and to those who demonstrate initiative, flexibility

and innovation.

I am proud today to inform the House that Gary Mitchell of Makkovik,

Labrador, was one of these recipients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Over the past twenty years, Gary Mitchell has made a great

contribution to the community of Makkovik. He is a member of the local Ground

Search and Rescue Team, as well as the Canadian Rangers. He is very active as a

Church Elder in the Moravian Church, and very instrumental in the choir. Gary

Mitchell was instrumental in starting the Economic Developmental Committee in

Makkovik and was instrumental in helping bring about the Labrador winter trails.

He is a gifted songwriter and spends a lot of time teaching young people in

Makkovik the art and talent of music.

It is an honor for me today, on behalf of all the people in my riding, to

congratulate Mr. Mitchell on an award so well deserved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On Thursday, March 30, friends and family of the late Joseph L. Butler

gathered at the Admiralty House in Mount Pearl to recognize Mr. Butler's

unique contribution to radio communications in Newfoundland and to place in the

telecommunications archives at the Admiralty House the clock so familiar to many

listeners in the early years, as its chimes signaled the beginning of the 1:30

p.m., 6:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. news read by Joseph L. Butler himself..

For many years, Mr. Butler gathered international news from BBC shortwave and

edited it with local content for his broadcasts. He and his partner, Walter

Williams, founded VOCM, the Voice of the Common Man, which served as the only

commercial alternative in Newfoundland to Dominion Broadcasting Company's

radio station, VONF.

Born in Port de Grave in 1901, Joseph L. Butler began his communications

career in 1919 as a Marconi wireless operator, serving telecommunications at

Makkovik, Labrador, and on Sable Island, Nova Scotia. He returned to

Newfoundland in 1930 after training and teaching in Boston as a radio engineer.

Mr. Butler was killed tragically while piloting his own airplane in 1954. His

radio station and his legacy was recognized by his business peers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

His legacy was recognized by his business peers when they named him the very

first inductee into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame. In 1993

he was inducted into the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Hall of Fame.

VOCM, the station founded by Joseph L. Butler, continues to operate and,

until recently, was managed solely by the Butler family.

The management and staff of the Admiralty House in Mount Pearl gratefully

acknowledge and appreciate the placement of this memento in their

telecommunications archives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to congratulate the winners of TickleAce 's

Confederation 50 Writing Competition for Fiction, Poetry and Essay. The winners

were announced at last Friday's launch at the LSPU Hall. The competition was

inspired by the Fiftieth Anniversary of Confederation and contestants from

across Canada entered pieces relating to the event.

In the fiction category, third place went to Lindsay Preston, second place to

Tom Moore, and first place to Joan Strong. Joan also won first place in the

poetry competition, with second place going to Jeannette Lynes and third place

to Carol Hobbs. Essay winners were: in third place, Helen Fogwill Porter; second

place, Trudy Morgan Cole; and, first place, Kay Anonsen.

All winners are published in Issue 37 of TickleAce , which is this

Province's premier literary magazine. It has been publishing for twenty-two

years and is released biannually. It has a great reputation across Canada for

the unique caliber of writing it publishes. Maclean's magazine called

it "One of the liveliest of its kind in Canada". It is the only

magazine devoted primarily to the publication and promotion of Newfoundland and

Labrador writers. It also includes works of visual artists. Over 70 per cent of

work published in TickleAce is written by residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I hope that all members will recognize the tremendous service

to the people of this Province as organizations like TickleAce provide,

and I would encourage everyone to purchase copies for themselves and their

families.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the work of the Labrador Fishermen's Union

Shrimp Company Limited in my district. The company is owned by the fisher people

who reside in the communities from L'Anse au Clair to Cartwright and was

established to address the need for development in the fishing industry of that

region. The Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited held their

annual general meeting this past week in L'Anse au Clair. Myself and the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province had the opportunity to

meet with them and to certainly discuss their prospects for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the staff and Board of Directors

of this company for their past twenty-two years of work and development in that

region, and I also offer my congratulations to Mr. Earl Stone and Mr. Morley

Normore who were just elected to the Board of Directors, and they are fishermen

who reside in that region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to say that this past week the Newfoundland and Labrador

Basketball Association sponsored an Under Eleven Pepsi Basketball Tournament in

Dunville, attended by several schools from the area. It was held at St. Anne's

Academy. I would like to send congratulations to the organizers, Mr. David

Constantine, Mr. Tony Woodman and many others, and the principal of St. Anne's,

Pam Constantine, for great hospitality.

Special congratulations go out to the team from Fatima Academy in St. Bride's,

and their coach, Mr. Ken Mandeville, who were the victors at the tournament. All

of these children were under eleven years of age, over seventy or eighty kids

involved. There was a great spirit there, great comradery. I think everybody had

a great time, but overall it gave an opportunity for these people to be involved

at this level. There is some great potential there for great basketball players.

I would just like to send out congratulations to one and all who were involved,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and pass on my personal congratulations and

appreciation to the teaching staff and the parents of Roncalli High School in

Avondale for hosting this year's Provincial 4A Basketball tournament.

This tournament was held this past weekend and it takes in areas from my own

district - students from my own district - as well as students from the district

of my colleague, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

I have no doubt that organizing a tournament such as this demanded a great

deal of preparation and hard work, and on behalf of the residents of my

district, and my colleagues, I want to pass on my sincere thanks.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Roncalli team. They were

this year's winners of the Provincial 4A Girls Championship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday and Friday of last week, provincial and territorial Ministers of

Health met in Markham, Ontario, with federal Health Minister, Mr. Allan Rock, to

discuss the state of health care in Canada.

It was an important opportunity to ensure that the federal minister

understands the serious concerns we all have over the federal government's

current level of funding in the health care system.

As provinces and territories, Mr. Speaker, we unanimously agreed that, first

and foremost: at a minimum, federal funding for health must be reinstated to

1994-1995 levels, and we also informed the minister that, in addition to this,

future federal transfers for health must include an escalator which ensures that

transfers keep pace with inflation and growing costs. Secondly, that the federal

government should reaffirm its fiscal support for medicare and the Canada Health

Act. Thirdly, as provinces and territories we informed the minister that we are

and have always been willing to consider any proposal at any time to ensure

sustainability of the publicly funded Canadian health care system.

I was encouraged by Minister Rock's response when he clearly stated his

willingness to work with us in enhancing and improving our medicare system. The

minister said, and I quote, "the federal government's commitment to the

Canada Health Act and public medicare is profound, consistent, and

unconditional."

The federal government understands that all provinces are making substantial

financial commitments to health care, and they are also working hard to adapt

our health care system to ensure it meets current needs and concerns. In our

Province we have increased health funding by 25 per cent since 1994-1995, even

in the face of considerable reductions in federal transfer payments over the

same period of time. We have also placed a high priority on encouraging

innovation and adaptability in our Provinces's health care system.

The federal minister agrees that more sustainable funding is required to

renew and restore medicare and to provide access to quality care in Canada. He

has expressed a desire to work with us in developing a better system of delivery

for health care across the full spectrum; areas such as primary care, home care,

and pharmacare, just to name a few.

The minister has assured us as well that he will impress upon his federal

colleagues the need for sustainable long-term funding to preserve and enhance

our medicare system. He also continues to suggest that the provincial work in

reform of the health care system must continue at an accelerated pace in order

to ensure the system is sustainable into the future.

While provincial ministers agree with Minister Rock, they unanimously agreed

that the restoration of the CHST is essential to stabilizing the current system.

Clearly, our existing health care system must be stabilized so that our

commitment to innovation and adaptability can be effectively pursued.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to see all the health ministers across the country showing

unanimous agreement to restore the funding that was there, back to the 1994-1995

levels. It is a little ironic too that the very minister they are meeting with,

along with our Premier, with Paul Martin the Finance Minister, and the Prime

Minister, are the ones who presided over the most devastating cuts to health

care in the history of our country, I might add.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It seems to become now not a matter of how much they might

put in, or are they going to put money in; it is a matter of when it is

politically expedient to put it in, it seems to be. All these four are players

in the federal game for the leadership of the party, or the prime

ministership' of Canada. Maybe they are waiting on the eve of a federal

election now to put money in to be the saviours for health care in this country

when they are the very people who devastated health care in our country.

It is not the provincial ministers of health we need to convince, I might

add, it is the federal ministers, the Prime Minister, who said to all the

provincial ministers: Go back and get your house in order, spend the money right

that you are getting, create an efficient system and stop the inefficiencies.

The minister sits on reports over in his office. I will use one example, the

ambulance service. The City of Corner Brook has $250,000 in duplication

inefficiencies for the last several years and they have done nothing. There are

inefficiencies in passing out money without public tender, to hire bidders in

public tender in health care over the past two years. Numerous examples of

inefficiency. No wonder the Prime Minister doesn't trust this health minister

to give him a cheque for health care here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We encourage our minister, and his counterparts as well, to continue their

fight to acquire more funding for medicare services. While money may not be the

answer to all the problems in our health care system, it is certainly a prior

requirement to fix a lot of them. I would also go one step further and encourage

our minister, other ministers and first ministers to condemn and to continually

condemn the action of Ralph Klein's government in Alberta where they are

leaning towards privatizing our health care services.

I think that is fundamental to the well-being and the continuation of a

medicare system that we have in this country and that we are proud of and to be

called Canadians for it.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide members with an

update on the progress of the construction on the Civic Centre project in St.

John's. Government is pleased to be a partner in this project and to be a part

of a number of other major construction projects which are currently in various

stages of development in our capital city.

Last week the Premier and Minister Furey, on behalf of government, unveiled

the concept design for "The Rooms," the new $40 million facility which

will house the Newfoundland Museum, the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador

and the Provincial Archives. It will be a state-of-the-art provincial facility

which reflects our cultural values. Archeological work will begin this spring

with construction expected to begin in the fall of this year.

As well, we will also see the completion of the $130 million redevelopment of

hospital services in St. John's as the major centre for referrals of the

Province. Mr. Speaker, this government is investing in our communities and

developing an environment which lends itself to additional private sector

investment.

The St. John's Civic Centre project is enhancing the infrastructure of our

capital city and revitalizing the downtown area. We are seeing a renewed

confidence in the area by the business community as new private sector

investments in the heart of the city are obvious. The employment resulting from

this and other construction projects are also contributing to some of the lowest

unemployment figures we have seen in our capital city for years.

The Board, using Canadian Construction Association measures, estimate the

direct and indirect economic impacts from the Civic Centre construction to be

752 person years of employment. A Coopers and Lybrand Study estimated that 135

person years of additional direct and indirect employment will be created from

the increased meetings and conventions which we will now be able to host. The

Board estimates the economic impact from meetings, conventions and event

businesses will be in excess of $7.7 million a year when the Civic Centre opens.

Earlier today I toured the Civic Centre site with members of the Civic Centre

Construction Board and our partners on the project. The budget of $36 million

has been fixed and I am told the Board expects to complete the project within

the available budget.

Tourism in the Province continues to be a major success. Since the successful

Cabot 500 celebration, the Canada Winter Games, and Soiree '99, tourism is up

over 30 per cent since 1996. This year, the Viking celebrations promise to

continue to draw tourists to our capital city and indeed throughout our

Province.

When the Civic Centre is completed and open for business, it will allow us to

better compete with other major cities in the Atlantic region. It will allow the

planning of larger conferences and conventions from all over the world and help

to enhance the already very popular reputation our city has as a convention

destination. I was told today that larger conventions are already being booked

for next spring predicated on the opening of the new facility, as has been

directed to us by the Construction Board themselves.

As the MHA for St. John's Centre, it is very exciting for me to see the

increased construction activity in our capital city. As a member of government I

am pleased that we are partners in the Civic Centre project and I hope we can

develop more future partnerships which will improve and enhance St. John's as

our capital city.

The Civic Centre Construction Board has placed a significant emphasis on

consultations with various user groups of these new facilities and I am sure the

citizens of St. John's and the surrounding region will be very pleased with

the final results of the project. I commend the Board members for their work to

date and wish them every success as this project moves closer to the completion

of the construction phase and, further, the opening of the facility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood and told us she was going to give us an

update on the Civic Centre project in St. John's. By her second paragraph she

was talking about "The Rooms" and the art gallery, in the third

paragraph she is talking about the hospital facilities at the Health Science,

and in the fifth paragraph she is talking about tourism. We thought that this is

the only minister who could cover more topics than Bill Clinton could in the

State of the Union address.

It is an occasion where I want to say to the minister that I hope she has

Andy Wells' permission to do this because the government is only a minority

player in this particular event. We compliment the government on its

contribution but we also draw the minister's attention to where she says she

expects the project to be completed within the available budget. I want to ask

the minister, if it is not within the available budget - and you say you expect

it will be, because if you knew it was within budget you would have said that.

Therefore I suspect that you know it is probably not on budget. I want to ask

you today if you are going to commit your government to share with the city the

cost of any overruns that this project might incur?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I knew the minister had new ministerial responsibilities but I did not

realize they were as extensive as they appear in this statement. I hope that

every time the minister visits some site or goes somewhere we won't be exposed

to a five minute Ministerial Statement on it.

As to the meat of the statement, she told us she has toured the Centre but

she did not tell us what she saw. I assume she saw a good quality civic centre

in progress. We support it. With the building of the Civic Centre and "The

Rooms" St. John's will have accomplished something very positive in

having two major public facilities built around the same time, adding to the

major infrastructure of the City for the purposes of conventions and visitor

activity, as well as underscoring our provincial heritage and the important

place that they fill in our history and our culture.

I certainly support that, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping the minister would tell

us something about the construction, where it was, or how things were going and

something that she saw this morning, rather than just having been there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform hon. members that nominations are now being accepted

for the 11 th Annual Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards.

These awards are presented each year to individuals and groups who

demonstrate outstanding commitment and dedication to the protection and

conservation of the Newfoundland and Labrador environment.

The awards are presented in seven categories: Individual; Citizen's Group

or Organization; Educator; Youth; School; Business; and Municipality.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards Program is jointly

sponsored between the Department of Environment and Labour and the Newfoundland

and Labrador Women's Institutes. I want to say a special word of thanks to our

co-sponsors. The commitment and dedication that the Newfoundland and Labrador

Women's Institutes has demonstrated for environmental initiatives is highly

commendable and their efforts are very much appreciated.

The competition for these awards is very intense and winners are chosen from

a highly competitive field. Although the program formally acknowledges the

achievements of a select group of individuals, there are thousands of

individuals and organizations that contribute in a very significant way to the

protection and conservation of our environment.

Information about this program is being circulated today to all members in

the House of Assembly and I would strongly encourage each member to give

consideration to the many individuals and groups in their districts that have

made valuable contributions in the area of environmental protection.

Additional information about this program can be obtained by contacting the

Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes or the Department of Environment

and Labour. Information, Mr. Speaker, is also available on the Department's

web site.

Thank you.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: ((Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will get to that in a minute, I say to the Member for

Bellevue.

I say this is a good initiative and I congratulate the minister for this

initiative, because there are thousands of individuals throughout this Province,

and there are hundreds of groups throughout the Province, who put their efforts

towards protecting our environment and looking after our environment. These

people should be recognized. It is unfortunate we can only recognize a few each

year. Because they put valuable time, valuable effort and a lot of their own

resources into protecting our environment. I do congratulate the minister and

the department for such an initiative, because as we can see over the past

number of years, and as we will continue to see, the environment is an issue

that is becoming more and more popular with the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, just for a moment, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No leave. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We support the environmental awards for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an

important way of recognizing the numerous individuals and organizations who in

many ways and for the most part are way ahead of government in terms of their

passion for the environment, and their willingness to do the background work,

the research, and bring forth the critiques of things that are happening that

affect our environment. They play a very significant role and make a major

contribution to our environment and to the life of our Province.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions I guess today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. In

November 1998 a transmission line from Labrador to the Island was a make or

break condition of the Lower Churchill agreement. A year later, in December

1999, the Premier told The Telegram that we didn't need a transmission

line any more, there is no need of it, that a natural gas pipeline would be much

better. What a difference in one year.

This government has kept that position until about the middle of this month,

but now publicly the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy are casting

doubts on even the option of a natural gas pipeline.

You now say there is not enough proven gas reserves to make a pipeline

feasible at this time. So where are you today, Minister? Where is the Premier

today in terms of the statements on: Is it back to a transmission line? Is a gas

pipeline? Or do we get up in the morning, lick our finger, put it up in the air

and find out which way the wind is blowing to find out which way you and your

government are going?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member is going to ask questions, he should get his facts right.

The Province has never said it was a make or break part of the Lower Churchill

development that we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, I would love to see the quote. The Province has never

said that is a make or break aspect of the deal. We have made it clear from the

very beginning that the Province could not finance it itself; that, if there

were going to be a line to the Island that would cost in the vicinity of $2

billion, we would need the assistance of the federal government. That assistance

has not been forthcoming.

I would invite the hon. member, if he and his colleague have the $2 billion

available to build that line, and can ensure the public that there will be no

unreasonable increase in rates, we would invite him to build it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Once again, I want to caution the minister to take the

advice of the former minister, the now Health Minister: Words are important in

this place. Words are very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I refer the now Minister of Mines and Energy to talk to his

former chief negotiator who said publicly that a make or break option was the

transmission line.

Let me ask him this: The Premier and this government and this minister have a

habit of jumping to conclusions at the drop of a hat, without bothering to look

at the evidence or even look for evidence. I ask you: Do you support, seriously,

what the Premier said in this House last week, or was he misinformed when he

told the House that a former government, led by a former Premier Peckford, gave

up royalties from Hibernia, forever and a day, just to get construction jobs at

Bull Arm and - listen to this - that the Hibernia deal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have asked the question, I say to the Government House

Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

- and that the Hibernia deal was worse than the Upper Churchill agreement.

Before he answers the question, let me reference this fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that over the lifetime of the Upper Churchill agreement,

we would have given away $60 billion. Do you support the Premier's statement

of last week, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests that we check our

facts. I think the media and other people who may be listening - I doubt that

there are very many - would invite the hon. member to check Hansard. When he

first asked the question, he said the Premier had said something. Now he says

the former chief negotiator said it was a condition precedent to build the line

to the Island. The hon. member is clearing trying to make political hay out of

something -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: - quite incorrectly, and he has asked several questions. The

first is: It has always been the Province's position, and it has always been

very clear, that the line from Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member looks at the record, we have made it clear from the very

beginning of all these negotiations that a line to the Island could not be built

unless there was finance assistance from Ottawa. That has been our position, and

it remains our position.

The second part of it is, dealing with the GBS and the floating platform

system and so on like that, the Premier's point was that the more money that

goes into development means less royalties for the Province. If a GBS is more

expensive, that means less royalties for the Province. That is the point and I

hope the hon. member understands it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is not what he said at all. I will ask

him this question: Isn't it a fact, Minister, that this government, based upon

that deal, is collecting royalties from Hibernia right now, and that the annual

royalties will reach in excess of $400 million or more when pre-production costs

of that project are paid off?

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

MR. DICKS: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker; it depends on what the price of

oil is.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if this government wants to find something to

compare - using the Premier's analogy, to sell out on the Upper Churchill,

they need look no further than their own negotiations with Quebec on the Lower

Churchill.

Haven't you already agreed to forego any royalties from the Lower Churchill

development until the $10 billion construction cost is paid off - that is nearly

twice the provincial debt - and when will it be paid off if that current

arrangement under the framework goes ahead?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on the Lower Churchill.

MR. E. BYRNE: But you have already (inaudible) it, so I will ask the

minister again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, under the framework agreement, hasn't the

government already agreed not to take any royalties until the $10 billion

construction cost is paid off? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, by definition, when there is no agreement there

is no agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is MOU, framework agreement - call it what you want -

that is what this government has agreed to, Mr. Speaker, in principle. While

they have not signed off, that was the agreement and that is why he will not

answer the question that I put to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask him this: Why is it that you have agreed in principle

to wait decades to get royalties from the Lower Churchill tentative agreement

when you already have agreed with Quebec that Quebec can take 2.5 per cent

marketing fee, cream off the top, of what is a so-called marketing fee? How does

that compare, I ask the minister? That agreement in principle, does it rise to

the level of Hibernia, in your view, or does it sink to the level of Upper

Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has to understand that there were issues around which the

parties negotiated. Those things have changed dramatically. One was a possible

building of the line to the Island; the other was diversion of waters; the other

thing was the additional water coming across the Upper Churchill watershed. It

was whether or not we do Muskrat Falls. All of these were items around which we

negotiated. It is unfair and it is inaccurate and it is wrong to say there was

an agreement. There is no agreement. There was no agreement. There may be an

agreement. When there is, we will advise the hon. member on this issue.

The second thing is that this government and this agreement has been the

first to ever get additional monies from the Upper Churchill, and this will

range in the vicinity $60 million to $70 million, over $1 billion into the

foreseeable future while the contract remains outstanding. We are going to net

between $20 million and $30 million a year on the resale of the recall of the

130-odd megawatts; and, secondly, the Winter Availability Contract will yield an

average of over $30 million back to the Province.

So, if the hon. member wants to say anything, if he wants to interpret

agreements, there are two agreements in place right now, and we are the only

government that has ever gotten additional money out of the Upper Churchill,

including all his predecessors.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: Isn't

it a fact that the Hibernia agreement, in view of the fact now the Premier has

said publicly that it is worse than the Upper Churchill - I cannot believe it,

but he said it - isn't it a fact that the Hibernia agreement founded an

industry in this Province, achieved long-term benefits not only in royalties and

taxes but in facilities, jobs and technology, business opportunities for local

players not only from Hibernia but potentially should have been from Terra Nova,

White Rose and beyond? I will ask the minister this: Do you think that your

record to date will stack up against that?

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

Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to declare, once and

for all, in his view, whether Hibernia was a good agreement or a bad agreement.

Today, I hear him saying there are wonderful things that establish an industry,

et cetera, and create a lot of jobs. Meanwhile, I have heard him in this House

say before what a terrible agreement it was and how can we justify that

agreement on the basis of such little royalty. So, I would like him to firmly

say what, if anything, was right about that agreement and whether or not, in

establishing any industry, the Province should take lesser benefits in order for

it to become a reality.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is obvious here is that what the minister needs is an

in-feed of some truthful information. That is what is obvious here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked him this question: Would their record stack up to

that? He would not answer it so let's review it. Let's look at your record

and the record of your Liberal predecessors in getting maximum benefits from the

preferential Atlantic Accord that we were entitled to. I will ask the minister

this: What about the work on drilling modules which was shipped out of the

Province, out of Marystown, to the shipyard in St. John, New Brunswick, for the

bogus reasons, with the blessing of not only your former boss but your Cabinet

colleagues-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - many of whom sat in your Cabinet? What about that work

that we should have had in Marystown?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I enjoy the hon. member's questions, but I think sometimes he gets his

input lines crossed with his output lines. The real issue that is going to be

discussed in this Province is not revisiting history in one form or another but

to determine a very vital issue.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, at some point, is going to have to adopt a

positioned advocate in the Province. The problem is this - and he puts his

finger on it with this question. If we want more construction work in the

Province, it means that we will probably have less royalties in the long run.

Now, there is a judgement to be made. The criticism of Hibernia that we now hear

is that we are not getting enough royalties.

The reason that he pointed out, and which some people hold to be valid -

which I have never heard him declare one way or the other, depending on which

question he is asking - is that sometimes it is necessary to have jobs right

now, to have construction, and you forgo royalties; because all construction

projects, all royalty regimes, have to bear the cost to get the resource,

whether it be minerals or oil in production.

The very question he raised is about shipping things out of the Province -

have it done in Korea, Montreal, Marystown, or here at the shipyard or elsewhere

are all very vital issues. The issue for us all to determine is whether or not

his party will say a GBS at any cost, a Hydro line from Labrador at any cost, or

if they are going to say: Look, we have to act reasonably and we have to make a

reasoned judgement about what is in the best interest of the Province, which

involves to some extent weighing immediate benefits right now in terms of jobs

and procurement against long-term royalties.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: He will not answer the question because it reflects on his

record. Let's review another aspect of the record. When the C-NOPB sent a

decision report to the former Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to

asking for his opinion about the engineering jobs from Leatherhead, England, did

you agree that the approach to take was not to respond? Because that is what

your government did. You did not respond, and let the C-NOPB decision report

stand on engineering jobs in Leatherhead, England. Did you agree with that

approach, sitting around the Cabinet table?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Province has always maintained the position that jobs should be located

in this Province where we can do so. We have done that with this Husky project,

White Rose. The Husky has been very good. They have located virtually all their

procurement in the Province. They have assured us that they will do the maximum

procurement, whichever method is utilized for a production, already locating

their engineering staff here. This project, more than any other, will have the

greatest development, greatest engineering and other preliminary aspects here in

the Province. We expect that we will have a great deal of procurement as well.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If he will not answer the question, I will ask him another

one. What about the $120 million mechanical outfitting contract - when you were

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology - that we lost with the famous

Liberal shrug-off phase that said: Well, we missed the contract. We should have

sharpened our pencils, dotted our I's and crossed our T's.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What about that, I ask the minister?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province know one thing about

all of this. There is a difference between the members opposite - the Opposition

- and the members here. The members opposite say: We must do things in this

Province, regardless of cost. We say: No, it has to be economic. Honourable

members have used that reasoning to develop tomatoes and cucumbers to be grown

in parts of this Island where it makes absolutely no sense. We, on the other

hand, believe that one must make a more reasoned and economic view of these

sorts of projects. That is one that, on point of principle, we would not have

done. I would be delighted to hear the hon. member's view as to how he would

apply that rational in the general resource sector.

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

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

They do understand the difference. They understand that this government

wasted $50 million in criminal decisions at the Cabinet table. They do

understand that the benefits enshrined to us under Atlantic Accord, this

government has let go without even a fight. So, let me review one more -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I would like to ask the minister this question: In view of the fact that the

Premier has opened up the history book, what about your government's failure

with respect to Terra Nova, with respect to procurement activities for people in

this Province?

I listened to the President of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities ask

this question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his question quickly.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and it is one I ask today. Why was it that your

government sat idly by and let $300 to $400 million worth of economic

opportunities for businesses in this Province, made right here, where they were

seriously disadvantaged -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and let those contracts go outside Canada and this

Province? Why did you sit by and let that happen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right about one thing. The

people of the Province do understand, and that is why there are fourteen of them

over there and more than thirty of us over here.

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. If

the Department of Human Resources and Employment has overpaid social assistance

recipients during any period of time, going back years that they received social

assistance, if they were overpaid that department will proceed to claw back the

overpayments. However, if the department has underpaid the social assistance

recipients - for instance, if there was a single mother out there who was

clawed-back for child support payments that she didn't receive - they will

only investigate six months back. I ask the minister: Why is there this double

standard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, my experience has been that when an individual

case presents itself the circumstances associated with it are investigated on an

individual basis, and either through the appeal board or through some other

mechanism judgement is made with respect to the appropriate action by the

department. I would have to know the individual circumstances of the case that

the member is referring to before I could indicate any further as to what the

response has been by the department. Generally speaking, when there is an

overpayment there is a practice of, yes, having to recover, and that is

government policy. When there is some circumstance presenting where we have not

paid what the client is entitled to, that is either handled through the appeal

board or it is handled through an individual review.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Minister, I am not talking about individual cases, I am

talking about policy, although I do have some constituents in that position. I

am talking about policy. The Department of Human Resources and Employment goes

back years to claw back money. They will claw back money that is probably owing

fifteen or twenty years ago, but if they have made a mistake, gone past six

months ago, they will not investigate, they will not open the books, they will

not open the file. That is the policy that has been relayed to me by the

financial assistance officers in the minister's department. That is what I

want the explanation for. Why do you go back years if they owe you? You will

only go back six months if you owe them. Not about an individual, just a

clarification of the policy, please.

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the case of income support or social

assistance it is the government's policy, and the whole reason for having

income support, to try and provide a safety net for people who have no other

means of support. Generally speaking, people come to the provincial government

for income support when they really have no other means in which to provide for

their needs financially and for their families. Again, I would have to say that

you would have to present to me the individual circumstances to which you are

referring before I could comment on the type or the nature of investigation that

my department or even an appeal board would entertain. Certainly it would depend

on circumstances of when this happened and what the nature of the underpayment

was before anyone could make that determination. I would like to have a few more

specifics before I could comment any further on this.

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

West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Minister, I can give you specifics on a couple of people

if you want but I think you are missing the point. I am asking you this. Why do

you have a policy that you can claw back, going years back into a social

assistance recipient's file, but you will only investigate six months back if

the department owes that recipient money? I just want the policy clarified, that's

all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as to why we would recover overpayments, I think

we have a responsibility as a government, when we are delivering tax dollars, to

support whatever social programs or social needs to ensure that we do it right,

that we do it well and that people get what they are entitled to; and that in

cases where, through some inadvertent mistake or otherwise, they get more than

they are entitled to, we have an obligation to ensure that we right the error.

That is just standard policy that we adopt.

In the case of when there is some kind of underpayment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS BETTNEY: Again, Mr. Speaker, what I would have to say in the case of

an underpayment is you would have to know the circumstances before you could

really provide the reasoning or the why, because essentially social assistance

and income support is to support people when they cannot support themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The second recommendation of the On Deck & Below report says to

purchase or lease a night ferry immediately for the Argentia service. The

definition of immediate I will have to get back to another day.

This year the Argentia ferry will be status quo. There will be no extra

accommodations, no extra vehicle room and no extra weekly runs because they are

going to have the MV Joseph and Clara Smallwood on the Argentia run. I

would like to ask the minister: Is this it for the Argentia run? Are we going to

be stuck with, and I quote, "Constitutional Cattle Boats" for the

Argentia run for the foreseeable future?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First of all, the corporation

told me they went into the world marketplace to seek out a night ferry. There

were none available anywhere in the world that would suit this particular run.

The second point I would make is that when the new ferry is purchased next

year, and indeed when the lease arrangement is concluded this year, that will

create a new configuration on the Gulf run and free up a dedicated vessel for

the Argentia run. Which is exactly what we called for to look after the tourism

components of that particular run.

Thirdly, there will be an announcement about whether the season will be

extended but I think that is more appropriate for Marine Atlantic to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: According to the report, Mr. Speaker, and I refer the

minister to page 24: the availability of such vessels has been confirmed by the

vessel technology consultant for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You tell me that Marine Atlantic couldn't find one and you could. You should

let them know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that job

applications for Marine Atlantic have to be sent to Nova Scotia. They will be

screened in Nova Scotia and the majority of people doing the interviews on the

board will be from Nova Scotia. I want to ask the minister: Is this satisfactory

to the minister? Is he satisfied that Newfoundlanders will get their full and

fair share of the new jobs with Marine Atlantic?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize there are no pictures in that report

for the hon. member but let me try to clarify it for him.

The report said that the government had confirmed that there were night

ferries available in the world. When the technical team from Marine Atlantic

went out to look at those particular ferries, they would not meet the

specifications of the docking facilities or the requirements for Marine Atlantic

on that run. It is pretty straightforward.

Now, to the second point. The hon. member argued last week that no

Newfoundlanders were bilingual, and therefore because they couldn't speak

French they wouldn't have proper access to those jobs. These are Canadian

jobs. Just as Newfoundlanders can apply anywhere in this country for any job,

any Canadian can apply for this job as well.

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

& St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Canadian jobs for Newfoundland service, as the minister calls it. I reiterate

that the ferry services exists because of Newfoundland and Labrador. With the

possibility that Nova Scotia has the Bluenose and Newfoundlanders are

going to be saddled with the Brown Nose,' I would like to ask the minister:

Do you think that residents of this Province should have preference for the

Marine Atlantic jobs on a service that exists because this Province exists?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, of course I do but we have to operate in the real

world. This is still a Canadian service. The people of Canada still spend

hundreds of millions every year on this service. If the hon. member will be a

little bit patient he will see that certain changes are coming which will

clearly show preference for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health

and Community Services regarding the community ambulance operators of this

Province.

Due to the factors such as out-migration, an aging population, new provincial

training standards, these community operators are finding it increasingly

difficult to remain viable. The Newfoundland and Labrador Community Ambulance

Operators Association have stated they cannot continue to operate on the funding

they receive under the road ambulance program. As a matter of fact, four such

services have folded recently.

I ask the minister: What steps have you taken to address this problem

adequately so that these mainly volunteer operators can continue to provide this

much needed service to the twenty-two areas of the Province in which they

perform their services?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the issue just for a brief moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get on with his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume that the hon. Member for Labrador West has not been appointed now as

a negotiator for this group. They have a very good spokesperson and

representative in their own right. In any event, when he is a negotiator for

certain groups he claims, when convenient, to have either lack of information or

loss of memory as to how much he knows at a particular point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We are working on a daily basis actually with the

representatives of not only the community-based services but the other two

private ambulance operator groups. The Members of the House of Assembly might

like to be educated to know that while the general public thinks there is only

one group of so-called private ambulance operators in Newfoundland and Labrador,

there are in fact three different groups. The group that he raised in this

question is one of three groups. What we are trying to do is find a way for them

to agree amongst themselves so that they can take today, tomorrow, any day that

we can have the agreement, a 50 per cent increase in their funding over what it

was yesterday. I think that regardless of whether it is community based or a

private service large or a private service small -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - that they will all be much better off with a 50 per cent

increase as soon as we can get them to agree to take the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that if it was an agreement that I was a part of

negotiating, it would be negotiated and not legislated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I ask the minister, based on the fact that if these

different groups cannot agree as to how the funding should be split and

allocated, will the minister become personally involved and see that it is done

in a manner that benefits the community operators of this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would expect then that the hon. member,

in referring to negotiations - agreements rather than legislation - means that

he has just completely and totally disassociated himself from the New Democratic

Government of British Columbia that brought in legislation, as I understand it,

last night to send some school workers back to work, and that he therefore -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a point of order.

MR. COLLINS: I would think, Mr .Speaker, on a point of order, that the

minister has more to be concerned about with what is happening in this Province,

without traveling to the other end of the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I will send a message along to the Premier and his colleagues in British

Columbia that he did absolutely disown them today in this Legislature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and wants nothing to do with the New Democrats in British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: So they must be a different breed than the New Democrats in

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and, secondly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to answer the

question that as well the New Democrats in Saskatchewan, as I understood it,

legislated their nurses back to work and he would not want to be a New Democrat

in Saskatchewan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: So we must have a whole different breed of New Democrats in

Newfoundland and Labrador than exists anywhere else in the world, and it is

great to see what they are like with their true colors, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday I will present a

private member's resolution which reads

WHEREAS Licensed Practical Nurses undergo an intensive twelve months of

training where they learn a broad array of nursing procedures; and

WHEREAS upon graduation LPNs are not permitted to work within their full

scope of practice; and

WHEREAS the duties of the LPNs who are permitted to practice varies from one

nursing unit to another and from one medical institution to another;

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House strongly encourage the Newfoundland and

Labrador Health Care Association and the Department of Health and Community

Services to allow Licensed Practical Nurses to work within their full scope of

practice;

AND FURTHER

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House strongly encourage the

Minister of Health and Community Services to make this a priority issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I am presenting another petition from the residents of the Shea Heights

community regarding wheelchair accessible housing units in that neighborhood. As

I have said during the presentation of other petitions to this House, the

residents in that area deserve wheelchair accessible, handicap accessible

housing, as do residents in any other community within the Province.

Right now there are no handicap accessible units in the Shea Heights area. We

are asking government to give serious consideration to putting handicap

accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. Because of the nature of the

community, it is a very close knit community. It is a community where the

families in Shea Heights group together to protect and support each other,

especially in times of need. In this particular case if somebody with a

handicap, somebody in a wheelchair, in the Shea Heights area, were looking for

housing, they would have to apply for housing in an area outside of their own

community.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Shea Heights area pride themselves on the

fact that they are there to help and protect each other, and with the support

network within the community, family and friends and so on to help residents of

the area, we respectfully request that the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

division of the Department of Municipal Affairs put handicap accessible housing

units in the Shea Heights area.

This is not a huge request, Mr. Speaker. As Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

are very well aware, the Shea Heights area is one of the highest demand areas

for housing units, and that is because the people in that neighbourhood want to

stay in that neighbourhood. The people who live there and who have grown up

there and who request housing units have a desire to continue to live in that

neighbourhood, and apply to stay in that neighbourhood. It is very evident, it

is very obvious, that there is a very high demand for housing units in the Shea

Heights area, and there is a demand for handicap accessible units in the Shea

Heights area.

Again, I simply ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to give serious

consideration to this request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that we resolve the House into Committee of

the Whole on Supply.

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

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think it is our intention in the next couple of

days to try to clue up the three heads of expenditure that we have to do in the

Legislature as opposed to doing them in committee. So I would call the first

one, Consolidated Fund Services.

I don't know whether the Minister of Finance would like to say a few words

on that or if he just wants to leave it to his colleagues on the other side to

question him.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is interesting to hear the hon. Member for St. John's South alleging

that he knows more about the matters relating to the funds we are going to be

debating, or the sub-heads we are going to be debating over the next few hours,

than I do. Frankly, with that comfort level he has afforded me I am more than

prepared to sit down and hear from the hon. Member for St. John's South, or

any other member of the Opposition.

Having said that, and working in the shadow of the hon. Member for St. John's

South, I would simply say this. The Estimates have been presented based on the

Budget that we presented two weeks ago. If the level of acceptance, the level of

appreciation for, and the level of support for the Budget translates into the

comments of the hon. members on the other side with respect to these areas, then

the debate could be rather brief.

However, having said that, I am prepared to answer any questions that might

arise out of the debate. For greater certainty and for greater comfort, and in

the interest of the maximum level of efficiency and information being available

here, I am flanked on my immediate right by the former Minister of Finance who

served in that portfolio so capably for four years. Between me with my little

bit of knowledge, and him with his extensive years of accumulated knowledge, I'm

sure we will be able to get through these debates in a timely fashion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) arr you?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, you are the critic of everything, aren't you?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am a critic all right. There is no trouble, I would say

to the Minister of Finance, to be critic for the government, for that

Administration. Everything they do can be criticized. There is no problem to

criticize that Administration because they do everything wrong. There are very

few things they do right.

I believe the Government House Leader wants to cover a few issues today; the

Executive Council also, and, of course, the Treasury Board Secretariat and what

have you. With respect to the Consolidated Fund Services, I notice here, I would

say to the minister - and hopefully he will pay attention and take a few notes

because we can't ask questions. I think we can get up and down. I'm not sure

if we are going to be going for a full ten minutes. Can we ask the minister a

question and he can respond, and go back and forth that way?

CHAIR: It is my understanding we are completely flexible.

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

With respect to 1.1.06., Recoveries on Loans and Advances, I say to the

minister, last year there was $4,133,500. Actually, it was revised down to

$3,633,500 at the year end, and this year we are basically down again to

$3,274,200. Hopefully, the minister, when he gets up on his feet, can address

that point. That is 1.1.06, Recoveries on Loans and Advances, I say to the

minister.

Now to 1.1.07., Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund. I noticed in the Budget

this year the government is planning on taking, I think, $110 million out of the

Sinking Fund with their Budget this year. That was one of the points we made,

our Opposition Leader made it right after the Budget Speech, that the government

is taking some $180 million out of the different groups, and $110 million that

they would normally put into the Sinking Fund is not going to be done this year.

They are taking it to help balance the Budget and bring the deficit down to $34

million.

With respect to the Consolidated Fund Services, I would like to say something

about Issues Under Guarantee, 1.4.02.08, I say to the minister, Loans, Advances

and Investments. There was $1.9 million budgeted last year and we have

$13,400,000 in the revised column. This year it is only $500,000. That is

significantly different, I say to the minister, $13 million different. Hopefully

he will address those points. That is what this is all about, this sitting in

the House of Assembly, I say to the Minister of Finance.

Also under the Estimates is the Employee Retirement Arrangements. Under

Contributions to Pension Fund, 2.1.01, we had budgeted in 1999-2000 the amount

of $52,545,500. It is revised up to $55,645,600, basically $3 million more. This

year it is $55,092,800. I thought that under the Contributions to Pension Fund

that the government had planned to put a lot more money into it over the next

couple of years. It seems to me that this is only going to be an extra $3

million over and above what had been done in past years. Hopefully the minister

will address that also.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of issues to be discussed here today with

respect to what the Government House Leader plans to address in the House today.

I would imagine he is hoping to have these subheads approved. I know that the

Estimates Committee meetings are underway. This morning I attended one with

respect to health. The Minister of Health was there. He is only in the

department a couple of months by the way, as far as I know. He seemed to have a

handle on his department with respect to having the answers. Then again, no

matter what questions you ask the Minister of Health and Community Services he

always has answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He is gone. I know he is gone, I say to the member. The

Minister of Health and Community Services always has answers. When he was the

Minister of Mines and Energy he had answers. When he was the Minister of

Education he had answers. Now he is the Minister of Health and has answers, but

that does not necessarily mean that the answers are right. He will give you some

sort of an answer but not necessarily a right one. It depends how in depth you

want to go into the questions. Because when you ask a question and he gives an

answer, it always ends up that you would have two or three more questions to ask

the minister.

This morning, with respect to the Department of Health and Community Services

in the Estimates Committee meetings, we went on for some length of time, and had

many questions. I have to say that oftentimes when you dig into different

departments, it is better saving your questions for the House of Assembly.

Sometimes we go into these Estimates Committee meetings, like we had here today,

and we ask all kinds of questions and we get some kind of answers. There is no

doubt about that, usually, but it is not necessarily the best place to ask the

questions. The House of Assembly is a better place, oftentimes, to do that.

This afternoon in the House the Leader of the Opposition asked a question to

the Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to the contradictions of this

Administration. The new Minister of Mines and Energy, when he was the Minister

of Finance, would get up and no matter what you asked him he was always trying

to spin out some kind of an answer that was completely irrelevant to the

question. We saw it again in the House of Assembly today with the Minister of

Finance and also the Minister of Health, I think.

I have some notes made here on this topic with respect to my response to the

Budget Speech. Two years ago when they made the announcement on Churchill Falls

and the possibility of an agreement and they did a framework agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER: Framework agreement?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is again where the minister tries to spin out that

there is no agreement. There is no final agreement, but you have to have

something to negotiate on. So they had a framework agreement, and in that

framework agreement were the two rivers being diverted, the in-feed to the

Island, and many other issues. Now there was no agreement. Then, only last week

or the week before last - and you could see it. The Premier of this Province is

becoming so predictable.

MR. TULK: Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. TULK: Remember last fall (inaudible) about the (inaudible) agreement

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The final analysis, Mr. Chairman, with respect to - and I

say to the Government House Leader, for Hansard purposes - because I was

speaking to someone in Hansard the other day and they were wondering why I am

always interrupted when I am on my feet. I have no problem with that at all but

I will try and -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know. I have to try and keep it in my mind to

refer to the person who is speaking to me. Obviously now it was the Government

House Leader who was just speaking to me.

With respect to Voisey's Bay, again, there was going to be a big agreement.

There last fall it was only days away. The Premier of the Province said: Voisey's

Bay, only days away, weeks away maybe. Then we had the Minister of Mines and

Energy come back all upset and say something completely different than what the

Premier was saying.

I will get back now, Mr. Chairman. That is what is going on with this

Administration. One hand does not know what the other hand is doing, but then, I

suppose, if I was in government on that side of the House and I had the present

Premier getting on the way that he is gets on, making announcements off the

cuff... He drives his staff mad. They must be in a tizzy all the time trying to

keep the Premier of the Province under control.

Anyway, again back to Churchill Falls. We have the two rivers, the in-feed,

and then the Premier there only a couple of weeks ago trying to rationalize -

get this now - because he knew what was coming. He knew there was going to be

trouble. He could see it. There was going to be trouble getting an agreement.

Now he is saying it is going to be delayed and what have you. Now he is out

there trying to rationalize that we do not need an in-feed to the Island. He is

giving all kinds of arguments one way or the other on why we do not need an

in-feed because now we have this gas. Let's have a gas line to the Island, a

pipeline to the Island from offshore, and we will utilize the gas. Because he

knew he was not going to get an agreement, he was trying to deflect from him,

the great negotiator, and his Minister of Mines and Energy, trying to deflect

away from him and them the reasons and put it on Quebec or put it on someone

else.

Now, he was willing two weeks ago, but he has changed his mind again. Now

maybe we should be looking at the long-term again, the long-term versus the

short-term. The gas line, a limited resource, is only so many years, but as far

as I know, unless something happens big time, the rivers and Churchill Falls are

going to flowing for many years to come. For eternity, hopefully, unless we get,

again, the greenhouse effect, where it dries up all the water in Newfoundland

and Labrador and we do not have any more rivers flowing. That is long ways off,

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Premier and to the Minister of Mines and

Energy. That is what he is trying to do, rationalize for the public. He is

(inaudible) Mr. Flip, Mr. Flop, one day saying one thing and trying to

rationalize it, and the next day saying something completely different and

trying to rationalize that.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Sir Gisborne' is at it again, I say to the people for

Hansard. If you did not hear that comment, I will not repeat it but it was Sir

Gisborne' of Bellevue.

Now, again, Churchill Falls, and the deal that we were supposed to have. I

mean, the great negotiator. This is something that the Premier wanted so bad.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Jack, ask him how (inaudible) looking for the Deputy

Speaker's.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I would not do that to him, I say now.

He wanted it so bad. He wanted to show the people in Canada, across the

country, for his leadership bid depending on what happens up along. That is

another story for another day maybe, and a long story that is going to be, but

that will develop, no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman. He wanted to show the

people of Ontario, BC, Manitoba, all across the country what a great negotiator

he is. Just imagine, the Premier of Newfoundland going up and working a deal

with Mr. Bouchard, the separatist. He is going to work out a deal with him on

Churchill Falls, something that has been a pain for this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador since the day they signed it. We have the Premier -

unreal, really - trying to compare this deal to Churchill Falls.

Now, with respect to that, he was up in the media the other day again saying

basically it was a deal, he had no choice, it had to be signed. He gave the

impression first that it was a deal signed by former Premier Peckford but no, it

was signed by the former Premier Wells. That is who signed the deal. Now he is

trying to tell the people of the Province that because the Tory Government

negotiated a deal it is a bad deal - that is what he's trying to say - and we

had to sign it, the Liberal Government had to sign it. This is the same man who

became a hero - the former Premier - in the country because he was the only

Premier who decided he would not sign the Meech Lake Accord. He had ten

provinces putting the pressure on him, he had the Prime Minister of the country

putting the pressure on him, and God knows who else, to sign the deal with Meech

Lake; but, no, he stood up and said: I'm not signing it.

This is a lot of latitude with respect to finances, anything with finances, I

say to the Minister of Finance; he should know. It is all relative. There is no

problem there. It is all relevant, I say to the Minister of Finance, because it

is all revenues for this Province; but he was trying to give the impression that

he had to sign, he was forced to sign, the deal for Hibernia. Yet, he stood up

against ten provinces, the Prime Minister of the country, all the federal

Cabinet ministers and what have you; no he would not sign it, but he had to sign

this deal negotiated on Hibernia. A bit of a contradiction, I say to the

Minister of Finance.

We see the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador trying to say

that this deal with Hibernia is as bad as Churchill Falls. For a starter, if you

compare the term, the length of the contract, and the money that Hibernia is

going to put back into this Province in the near future, it was a good deal,

plus it created jobs.

Now Churchill Falls created a few jobs, granted, and it is not giving us back

any money. Churchill Falls, $800 million a year we are losing; $800 million a

year. That (inaudible) happening for Hibernia in a few years' time, and the

kind of bucks we are going to get back from that. It started an industry.

As I said earlier today across the House, the Minister of Finance and the

Premier should get on their knees every night and thank God for John Crosbie and

Brian Peckford, who put that in place. They should thank God for them. The

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should thank God for the $800

million they are still spending on the roads.

MR. SULLIVAN: Rails for roads.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Roads for Rail. The Province is putting $12 million

into roads this year, and they are talking about spending $130-something

million. The rest of it is coming from the Roads for Rail - the Labrador

Highway, all these things.

How long am I allowed to go here? Boys, you're going to have to start

taking a turn soon now.

We are talking about the Estimates Committee meetings. Here today we are

doing the Estimates, of course, and we are doing, as I said, the Executive

Council, the Consolidated Revenue Fund Services, and the Lieutenant-Governor and

a few more.

Tomorrow morning we are doing the Public Service Commission, a Public Service

Commission that was put in place back in the 1970s by a Tory administration, to

make sure that all hiring in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with

government, with the Crown corporations and what have you, was done on a fair

basis, and it was done with respect to your qualifications - tops, supposed to

be, and have someone recommended, interviewed. No, they had to scrap that. This

administration had to scrap that because they wanted to hire through the line

departments; that the ministers could hire who they wanted.

When we form the government, I can tell you right here and now, the Public

Service Commission will be put back in place with the proper authority that it

had in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: It won't be scrapped and used and abused like this

government is using it and abusing it.

I say to the President of Treasury Board, I think it is, be prepared for

questions tomorrow morning. The Public Service Commission, when you look at it

in the Estimates, there is not a lot there but there are lots of questions that

can be asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good Chairman.

MR. J. BYRNE: Good Chairman of the Estimates Committee. We had a meeting

this morning and we had the Chairman of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is Chairman, is

he? He did a good job this morning. I thought he did a good job. He didn't

have to say much because we were so reasonable and we didn't want to give the

Minister of Health too hard of a time. He did a reasonable job, I suppose. We

have to give him credit for that.

There are many, many people on this side who are anxious to get up and refer

to the Consolidated Funds, Mr. Chairman. I am sure I will be up again throughout

the day on different issues and have a few words to say.

Seeing that I spoke the other day and completely enlightened members on the

other side of the House for over two hours, I think they probably need a little

break from me now and we are going to let some member on this side - and

hopefully, seeing that this is such an important issue, somebody on that side of

the House will get up and say a few words.

Oftentimes when we have legislation going through the House, the Estimates or

what have you, it is always this side of the House, the Opposition, who carries

the House, and you don't have anybody up there on the government side speaking

in favour of the legislation, speaking in favour of the Budget or anything like

that. It is left to us to either support it or not support it. That is a sad

thing to see. We have over double the members over there and nobody will get up

and speak. Why shouldn't some of the ministers?

The Minister of Human Resources, why doesn't she get up and speak to this?

Or the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Education? Even the Minister of

Finance was up today. What did he say? Nothing. Two or three minutes - passing

millions and millions of dollars through the House of Assembly - two or three

minutes, and he sits down. That is how serious and important - what they think

about this Consolidated Funds, Mr. Chairman.

With that I will sit down and take a break. I will probably get up again in

another little while.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure whether somebody else on the other side wants

to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. MATTHEWS: They are voluminous, they are detailed, they are intense,

they are hard-hitting, they are mind-jolting and they are nerve-wrecking.

Actually, I am in great trepidation and I am in the great state of preparedness

to respond to your questions. If there is nobody else who wants to speak, I will

respond. Otherwise... Go ahead, Harvey.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to ask the minister if we could refer to certain sections. If we could

have the minister's indulgence, what I would like to do is have a dialogue

back and forth with the minister. I know the minister obviously should be

listening but he isn't. I wanted to know, Mr. Minister, if we could refer to

particular sections. Then I would like to be able to ask a question and then, in

a dialogue back and forth, get more information pertaining to the Consolidated

Fund Services.

If we could refer to page 5, you have a

section called Temporary Borrowings.

Maybe we could just run down through them. I have certain questions. It might

take fifteen or twenty minutes, I say to the minister.

In item 1.1.01., Temporary Borrowings, appropriations provided for the

interest expense on temporary bank borrowings by the Province. Last year we

budgeted $150,000. It is budgeted this year for $150,000 as well, but in the

revised budget it went up to $850,000. I was going to ask the minister what

happened between the budget time last year and, of course, the revised budget.

Why did we have to spend an extra $700,000 on Temporary Borrowings? Was that

because of interest rates? What happened in our borrowing policy? We spent more

money when indeed the interest rates were in a state of declining. Therefore, I

would like to ask that question to see if the minister could provide an answer

to that, and then we will proceed on to other items.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That figure was revised to $850,000, but you will notice it is still budgeted

this year for $150,000. The simple answer to it is that we actually borrowed

more money last year on a short-term basis as opposed to putting it into

long-term borrowings, things like our bank overdraft, that type of thing. It is

difficult to know for sure to what extent we are going to be using that type of

facility on a short-term basis as opposed to permanent borrowing on a long-term

basis. It is very simply that and that only.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the minister.

We accept the minister's explanation. We just wanted to make sure for the

public record that there is a logical reason for the alteration and the changes

within the data that is provided.

I would like to go down to bottom of page five. It is on 1.1.05, Temporary

Investments. The note there reads: "Appropriations provided for interest

earnings on the Province's investment of available cash in the money markets,

and on bank balances." Last year we had in the Budget $6,381,700, but when

the revised Budget was entered it was for $2,175,000.

I would assume the minister would have some handle on how much money there

would be on a regular basis in the bank on behalf of government, and that he

would have a pretty good idea as to why you would put in $6,381,700 last year,

but then when the increase was calculated we only earn $2,175,000. Obviously, we

either grossly underestimated the interest that would be paid - and while we

recognize the interest rates did go down, it seems that there should have been a

better estimation done on behalf of the people who are giving you this

information - or we certainly seemed to have missed the mark. In other words, we

budgeted for $6,381,700 and we actually earned $2,175,000. This year we are at

$3,050,500.

I wonder if the minister could give some explanation as to why last year we

were expecting to earn $6,381,700, and yet we only earned $2,175,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The low interest rates were a small contributing factor, but, in fact, they

weren't a significant contributing factor.

MR. H. HODDER: No, it is too much for that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. The reality is that we had less money on deposit

earning short-term interest returns than we had projected when the Budget was

put together a year ago. That is simply the reason for it. As a matter of fact,

we had only $2,175,000 in actual earnings on our money that was kicking around,

if you like, in terms of availability on a short-term basis. This year we have

re-estimated at $3,050,500, and while that is significantly higher than last

year by almost 30 per cent, I think it is a better estimate than obviously the

$6,381,700 that we had in the previous Budget. Simply put, we did not achieve it

because we had less funds on deposit for shorter periods of time, and to some

extent, at lower interest rates.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to ask this question as well. Some time ago there was a statement made

by the Premier that indeed something like $30 million had been transferred to

the Province last year under the CHST transfers, particularly as it relates to

health transfers. I know in the Province of Quebec they kept a lot of their

transfers in the banks, and actually kept it in a bank in Toronto. I'm

wondering if the $30 million that was allegedly transferred to this Province,

and was kept in reserve, if this particular

section here includes that money

that was transferred under the federal transfers but was not expended. We

understand there is about $30 million that was transferred last year which still

sits in some bank somewhere, which has not been accessed by the Province.

There was some comment on the public airways a few weeks ago relative to that

matter. I am wondering if this particular section, 1.1.05., Temporary

Investments, would include monies transferred from the federal government for

health care and then invested rather than being expended.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe, without being absolutely sure, that that is where that earned

interest on our CHST investment is included. I believe that is where it is, but

if you wanted me to get the definitive answer on that amount and on whether or

not it is included in that I can take it under advisement for you and get it

from the officials.

The fact of the matter is that as of the end of the last fiscal year now -

our year which ended March 31, Friday past - we have taken into revenue pretty

well all of the CHST money that was given us a year from February past to be

drawn down over a period of time if we so wished. You are referring to the

Quebec situation, where they had $800 or $900 million on deposit and did not

take it in. We did not have the luxury of leaving that much money in short-term

deposits, getting smaller rates of interest. We needed the money and we took it

into our revenue much earlier.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Minister, if I could ask you a question on this matter, though. How much

money of that $30 million that we are talking about, transferred from the

federal government, is still held in separate bank accounts and is not included

in this particular year's budget for health care?

MR. MATTHEWS: If you wants to talk on for another minute I will find that

answer for you. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat important that we make sure

that the information the minister gives us is accurate, because many people

across the Province are wondering why a province, which is so financially

strapless as we are in our health care budgets, would find ourselves in a

position of luxury to have $30 million sitting in a bank account when we have so

many health care needs.

While the people of Quebec will have to ask their government why the

government of Premier Lucien Bouchard could have something like $800 or $900

million sitting in a bank - in I believe it was Toronto - without it being spent

in the fiscal year in which it was transferred, this brings into question the

kind of meetings that are ongoing now. When you say to the federal government:

We want more money, and then when the federal government looks and they say to

the Province of Quebec: Look what you did with the money last year. You took it

and put it into a bank account in Toronto and invested it out of province. No

wonder the federal government is saying: Why are you asking us for money? I am

sure this Province does not have that luxury. We know on this side that we do

not have that luxury.

Last year, there was an amount of money, $30 million, that was put into the

bank account, sat in a bank account all year and was not properly expended by

this government. With all the health care needs we have in this Province, with

nurses being forced back to work, with the kind of draconian legislation we saw

last April, and with ambulance operators saying: We cannot operate, and with the

parents of special needs' children coming to the Province saying: We need more

help, and with all the other needs we have in this Province, we need an

explanation as to why there would be that amount of money sitting in a bank

account and not being properly accessed.

Now, the people of Quebec will have to ask their questions in Quebec but we

in this Province would like to have an explanation as to why that happened, why

that amount of money was not accessed last year, how much money is there now,

and in what ways it will be allocated in this year's Budget. This is very

important because, with the Minister of Health in this Province going to Ottawa

looking for more money, and then the federal government saying: but last year

you kept $30 million in the bank and did not access it.

Mr. Chairman, this topic was in the public airways a few weeks ago and I

wanted to get the minister's comments on it because obviously this is where

the bulk of this $2.175 million was earned last year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member will recall last year, the year ending

March 31, 1999, much like the year ending March 31, 2000, saw the provincial

revenues growing beyond what we had estimated by virtue of the strengthening of

our economy and some increases on the upside in equalization payments coming to

the Province. As a result of that, the plan originally for the $61 million

one-time CHST 1999 transfer was to take in $35.2 million; in 1999-2000 take in

$17.3 million this year and $8.5 million next year.

What we have done this year is taken into revenue a total of $338,593,000 by

way of Estimates in terms of what our CHST will be, and that represents our

normal CHST entitlement of around $270 million or $280 million, plus the $43

million that we got this year in one-time money, plus the $17.3 million that was

effectively scheduled to come into our revenue this year from the 1999 one-time

supplement.

The problem for us with the federal government putting one-time money in

their budgets is that we do not know about in advance, number one; secondly, we

do not know whether or not the following year there is going to be some more

one-time money or not. So in 1999 we planned prudently, as did Quebec and other

provinces, to take it over a three-year period. What we found out is that in

their budget this February there was some more one-time money coming; so what we

decided to do this year was to take it all into revenue on the virtual assurance

that between now and their next budget there would be some even additional new,

either one-time or reinstatement of base budget money coming for CHST. It is the

whole issue that the Health Ministers were meeting about for the last two days

of last week.

I met with Paul Martin about two or three weeks ago in his office for about

an hour one morning and I can tell you that he confirmed in my mind the

statements that were made by the Premier on federal budget night when he said

that he had a high level of assurance that there would be more money coming into

health care once the health care ministers got together to have their meetings

and the once the First Ministers got together after the Health Ministers had

met. So, on the basis that I have a high level of comfort there will be a fair

number of new dollars for health care coming in within the next twelve months to

the Province, this year we took in the $42.9 million.

Back to the point of your question, though, my information is that there is

still $8.5 million of the $61 million that we got last year in reserve to come

into our revenue next year, but we can take that this year if we see a need for

it. Frankly, with the flexibility we had at the end of the year just past, we

have stayed with the three-year plan that we had in place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

So, Mr. Minister, the truth of the matter is that last year when the Province

was pleading that they never had any money, that indeed there was money sitting

in the bank accounts; that, if you had taken the same attitude last year that

you are taking this year, whereby you were going to spend all the money in

advance, the entire amount of money, the $44 million that is coming this year,

or thereabouts, or $43 million, somewhere around there, the reality is that last

year we had a great number of people in this Province in health care asking for

extra monies. When we said we did not have the money, if we had taken the

attitude that we are taking this year, we could have addressed some of those

needs.

I want to move to another issue, and it is on page 6. It is relative to the

sinking fund, item 1.1.07., which says: Appropriations provide for the payment

to the Province of sinking fund earnings in excess of the amounts required to

redeem related sinking fund debenture debt, or upon cancellation of sinking

funds.

In other words, we have an amount of money which is allocated every year to

pay for the then current year's responsibilities to our bondholders and

others. Obviously, in this particular case, we had last year in the Budget

$35,600,000 and that was a topic for debate. The minister will recall that we

passed a piece of legislation which authorized the government to be able to

access that money to spend it on, if need be, current account. In other words,

there was $35 million more which had been allocated into the sinking fund than

was the cost of the government's obligations to service that fund. That meant

that $35 million, up until last year, would have had to go and stay in the

sinking fund allocation and wasn't available to the minister for other

expenditures.

I want to ask the minister, last year when we did the Budget, it was

estimated that we would have $35,600,000 in that particular allocation. In

actual fact, it was only $10,396,000 which actually was turning up there. Since

we know the rates to be paid, we know all that in advance, why did we last year

indicate in the House that there was an allocation of $35,600,000 when, in

reality, there was only $10,396,000? There seems to be a gap here of $25

million.

Given the fact that the sinking fund is a very predictable fund and we know

precisely now what it will cost us to service the sinking fund next year and

perhaps even the year after that - sinking funds have very much predictability

and, for the most part, they are fixed in interest rates and that kind of thing

- I want to ask the minister why last year we had to pass a piece of legislation

to let the government access the $35 million to spend it where they wished, to

spread it over the Budget to do current day services, perhaps to boost health

care, to spend it on education or spend it on housing or wherever - the reality

is that we said there was $35 million there - I want to know first of all why,

in the revised budget, it turned out to be $10,396,000?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The answer is pretty simple. We estimated last year that we would take into

revenues a certain amount of money from sinking fund for purposes of our

revenue. We did not take into revenue as much as we had scheduled to take in

because we had additional new revenues that we had not budgeted in our own tax

sources and in equalization upside adjustments.

On the other side of it, we have determined that as a result of being able to

roll over or extend for another twenty years some of our Canada Pension Plan

borrowings, for which we had provided some redemption capacity in our sinking

funds previously, we did not need to have that money there now because the CPP

loans were rolled over for another twenty years; that we would take these monies

into our revenue as revenue sources to build our budget this year and beyond

this year where there is still some available next year.

The Auditor General made some comments, appropriately so, recently with

respect to the issue of having sinking funds sitting on deposit, if you like,

when we could better use them as revenue sources and at the end of the day be a

little bit net better off because we earn a little less money on what we have in

investments than we pay for what we have on borrowings. For the reasons of

revenue adjustments within the budgetary years, and for reasons of sound and

prudent fiscal management, we have been using some of our sinking funds to

really augment revenue sources in current years and we have been making

substantial changes in the revised figures in our Estimates as is highlighted

here by the minister: $35,600,000 was budgeted; we actually ended up with a

figure there of $10,396,000 and this year, of course, we are looking at

$116,004,000 in our Estimates. That clearly shows that we are taking into income

a large chunk of our sinking funds.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Minister, we on this side have no difficulty with using extra monies, as in

the sinking fund, to provide day-to-day services to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. In fact, we agree with the Auditor General and agree with the

minister in his comments a few moments ago that it doesn't make any sense to

have millions of dollars sitting in a sinking fund that just sit there when, of

course, the Province is going out and borrowing money. Certainly that was the

subject of a piece of legislation which was passed here in the House last spring

giving the government the legal right to go and access that kind of money.

I wanted to ask the minister, because I understood last spring that the

$35,600,000 which was put into the Budget Estimates last year was an

accumulation of sinking fund extra monies over some years. I am wondering if he

has any idea as to how many years that was and if that, in fact, is a correct

statement? In other words, $35,600,000 was not a single year's entry but was

an accumulation over some time. I am wondering if the minister has any comments

that he could share with the House relative to that particular matter.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would have to get, for the hon. member, from the officials, a breakdown of

that $35,600,000, but I think it is safe to say that it is an accumulation as

opposed to a one-time amount. The fact of the matter is that we have had, over

the years, a fair amount of money in various sinking funds, so $35,600,000 would

not be related to any one year, but I think it would be as part of an

accumulation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer again to the sinking funds. The fact is that

last year you indicated there was $35,600,000 and in actual fact there was only

$10,396,000 that was available to the government, and this year you are saying

it would be $116,004,000. I wanted to look at the fact that last year's figure

was approximately 60 per cent inaccurate. In other words, you had indicated it

was $35,600,000 and there really was $10,396,000. I wanted to seek ways of

knowing, from the minister, whether this year's figure is any more accurate

than last year's figure?

For example, last year, if you said there was $35,600,000 and there really

was $10,396,000, this year you are saying $116,004,000, what steps have you

taken to make sure that this year's figure is any more reliable than last year's

figure?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the question almost lends itself to the

questioning of the credibility of the Estimates that we are providing and I

would suggest, in large measure, as he would know, that the credibility of that

figure is directly related to the best judgement of our officials who advise us

in terms of what money is available, when we can take it in, and how much we

should take in. I would say the figure of $116,004,000 is highly creditable; but

if he wishes, for further certainty and for a greater level of comfort, I will

double check with my officials to ensure that they are sure, and that they feel

and know they have given us the best possible advice in terms of how we should

handle our sinking funds management issues.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I remind the minister that in the House of Assembly he shouldn't be hiding

behind the comfort of the civil service. We assume that all those meticulous

pages of notes that they provided for him over there - in some cases, when I

know the minister is searching through his documents, I'm obliged to keep on

talking because I can look across the House and see the minister searching

frantically.

I assume there is a very good rationale, but the minister is the one

responsible to the House of Assembly to communicate the particular rationale.

Consequently, I am surprised the minister would stand in his place and say that

by asking questions I was questioning the credibility of the officials. I'm

not doing that whatsoever. I am just asking the minister responsible if he would

give us the explanations that I am sure they have and which he is responsible to

provide to the House of Assembly.

I would ask the minister if he would refrain from questioning his staff. If

we did that, the minister would be the first one on his feet saying: Don't do

that, that is unfair. So when the minister stands in his place and says we have

to rely on the staff, we want to rely on the minister.

I assume the minister will get a detailed briefing on that $116 million. I

wanted to ask him now this question. In view of the fact that there is going to

be $116 million transferred to other departments in government, does he have any

idea as to what budgets and what department were augmented by this, or was it

just thrown into a particular general revenue source and appears in all other

various departments? Or is there some particular place where this money will

appear? Will this be allocated to health care, education, or is this money going

to be thrown into the general pot and then every department comes in with a big

spoon and scoops out their share? I wanted to ask the minister, where and how

will this extra money appear in the overall Budget?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know the hon. member is doing a good job to be intelligently probing and

that sort of thing. In the whole context of legislative debate he is wont, at

times, to be a little bit politically mischievous in terms of how he is couching

his questions and making his comments.

The fact of the matter is, and let the record be clear, that this minister is

not hiding behind the mask of bureaucracy or officialdom. What I am simply

saying is that, contrary to what he might be suggesting I am saying, I am

alleging that we, as a government, and I, as a minister in the Department of

Finance, have a very high level of comfort in the ability of our officials to

provide us with good information.

I was simply saying that the $116 million we have taken into revenue from

Sinking Fund monies that were in place was based on the good advice of our

officials and the good commentary provided by the Auditor General in her

comments. As to where this $116 million shows up in terms of expenditures, the

hon. member would know that the money would have gone into general revenues, the

consolidated revenue fund of the Province. The consolidated revenue fund is

indeed a very large fund. It is a big pot. The hon. the Member for Ferryland was

suggesting that we put it all in the consolidated revenue fund and then we stir

it up with a big stick and then we take out so much for each department with a

ladle of appropriate size. Well, in that exercise, if that is how he wants to

couch it, substantially most of the new money that is being expended in our

budgets generally is going into the social sector, primarily into the health

care sector. To that extent, the health care sector is largely the beneficiary

of the revenues that we have taken in.

In all fairness, as to the government, the fact of the matter is that

revenues come into the consolidated revenue fund. Gasoline taxes are not

dedicated to Works, Services and Transportation to build roads. It goes into the

revenue pot. Liquor revenues are not dedicated to running liquor stores and

specific activities. All of our tax revenues and all of our source revenues go

into the consolidated revenue fund and we allocate departmental budgets against

the total pot of money that we have in consolidated revenue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to move on to Investment Recoveries. This

section is on the bottom of

page 6. This is in the

section under Capital. In 1.2.01, Recoveries on Loans,

Advances and Investments, last year the minister indicated they would recover

$13,636,000. When the final monies were put into the revised budget, it said it

was only $936,000. That means there is a fair number of loans on which the

government did not regain its interest.

I wanted to ask the minister for an explanation. Why did you, on the basis of

all probabilities, say that you were going to recover $13,636,00 from various

loans, advances and investments, and then come up very short, only $936,000?

That is about a 25 per cent error. Certainly, when that figure was entered last

year the officials went into various departments, and I assume this is, shall we

say, not any particular department of government. What happened for you to

estimate $13,636,000 and then you are down to $936,000? That is a great change.

There is a big gap between $13,636,000 and $936,000. I am sure the minister has

an explanation.

Certainly last year the officials must have said that we expected to regain

that amount of money. That is a difference of over $12 million. That would mean

that last year's Budget figure was about 8 per cent accurate, and you had over

90 per cent error or miscalculation. Certainly you would have known last year

what you were going to recover from various loan, advances and investments, and

you could have been a lot more precise than that. A 90 per cent error or

misstatement or failure to achieve your target is certainly not a very accurate

way to, shall we say, be responsible in this particular category.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will answer the question by saying to the hon. member that, as opposed by

trying to articulate all of the sources of loan repayments and advance

repayments that we have, I will get him a list of what makes up the repayments

that come to $936,000 last year. Obviously, there is a large discrepancy in what

we estimated and what we took in. The member will also notice that our estimate

this year is fairly consistent with what we had estimated the previous years.

The short answer to it, without getting into the amounts, is that we didn't

take into revenue last year some repayments that we anticipated. We do

anticipate them coming into revenue this year, and that is why we have basically

carried about the some figure in this year's Budget. The actual amounts and

sources, to the extent that they can be made available, I will provide to him.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted to ask you if you could share with us - and maybe you could do this

by way of a communication between yourself and myself so we don't get into

reading into the House of Assembly a long list of private companies that would

owe money to the government. That is not my intention, for the minister to list

down the companies. The Auditor General -

MR. MATTHEWS: In a general sense you want to know.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I would like to be assured that what is happening

here has a logical explanation. I think it is our responsibility on this side to

ask that kind of question and I will give the minister, shall we say, every

opportunity to share that list with us because we would like to know exactly

what category that is in and how that figure has changed from last year.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he could go now to page 7,

which is again under Capital, rental purchase and properties. It is item 1.3.0l,

Various Facilities, and this says: Appropriations provide for payments into

sinking funds established for the purchase of various leased facilities at the

expiration of the respective lease terms.

I want to ask the minister, since it is only $89,500 here, this must be some

kind of a contractual obligation because the amount did not change last year. It

was in the Budget for $89,500. That was exactly what was spent. That is what is

there this year. Is there some kind of a long-term obligation here, or is this

again because it was precisely on last year in the Estimates, it was precisely

the amount that was spent, the same amount this year? There must be a logical

explanation for that $89,500.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to clarify on my previous answer with respect to the anticipated

repayment of loans, the hon. member is absolutely right and I thought I made it

clear that I would not be in any sense sharing information in terms of naming

sources of loan repayments, and discussing individual matters of individual

companies in the House.

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MR. MATTHEWS: That would not be appropriate and I did not intend to

convey that I would be doing that, but to the extent that I said it would be

appropriate to make available more information on that line item to the member,

I would happy to do it.

The same thing applies with this here. We have some obligations for purchase

buyout of leased facilities at the expiration of their terms, and we have made

provision, as it is called here, Rental Purchase - Non-Statutory, for $89,500 to

deal with these. Again, it would not be appropriate to say whether we have a

specific lease, I don't think, with a specific company for a certain piece of

equipment or with a leasing company for a specific building. It is just to cover

that type of statutory obligation that we have at the end of some leasing

periods.

The amount that we have been carrying last year and this year is the exact

same amount, so it is obvious that it is very specific to a very specifically

identified obligation we have with respect to some leases that we have in place.

To the extent that it might be appropriate to tell him what it is, whether it is

equipment or whether it is real property, I would be happy to take that under

advisement and provide him with whatever is appropriate information on that in a

more detailed fashion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted a supplementary question there to ask the minister how long- term

this particular obligation is. It has been appearing in the Budget for some time

as $89,500, and I wanted to ask the minister if he could share with the House as

to how long-term this particular contractual obligation is, and when will the

time come, if ever, when this will not be an obligation of the Public Treasury?

He might tell us as well whether it is real property, whether it is

equipment, and perhaps as to what particular division of government might be

leasing these; because he says facilities and the word facilities, to me, would

indicate real property rather than equipment. Maybe he can provide a little bit

more information as to what is the nature of it, how long-term the leasing

arrangement is, whether or not this matter will be ended, how long the

contractual obligations are, and a little more information as to why we continue

to carry this precise amount of money. If this had been varying from year to

year, there would be a different set of questions. Obviously there is something

here that is an obligation on the government and it is rather long-term. How

long-term is it, and when will it be finished?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Probably I can clarify it now, both on this issue and the previous issue. The

$89,500 is to take care of a future obligation as a result of leases that we

will have to purchase with respect to certain health care facilities at the end

of a thirty year lease.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Is this St. Clare's or -

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. H. HODDER: Is this connected to the Grace Hospital, St. Clare's

Hospital or any of those?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not. It is connected with the three health

care facilities that were built in 1992-1993.

On the issue of the discrepancy of the, I think it was $13, 636,000 verus

taking into revenue last year of $936,000, the big variance there was the fact

that we did not take into revenue last year - because this is not only loan

repayments. As the subhead says, it is also advances and investments. The big

difference there is the fact that we did not take into revenue last year, as we

had budgeted to do, a $10 million return of investment in the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation. As a result of that not being taken into revenue

last year, it made a substantial difference; but, as you notice in the

Estimates, we have again estimated or made provision to take that into revenue

this year. That is why it reappears in the 2000-2001 Budget Revenue Estimates.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Minister, I thank you for your answer. Again, the purpose of this exchange is

so we can put on the public record more information relative to how the Budget

is formulated, particularly as it relates to the Consolidated Fund Services.

I want to move now to the Guaranteed Fees - Non-Statutory,, page 7, under

Current Account, 1.4.01. It says: Appropriations provide for fees charged

private companies and certain Crown Corporations which have debt guaranteed by

the Province.

The Professional Services fee here is $50,000. I wanted to ask the minister

if he could provide us with more information as to what particular Crown

Corporation we are talking about and what private companies we are collecting

money from here for guaranteeing their debts? I understand a fair bit of this

information might be available in the Auditor General's report on the Crown

Corporations, but I am wondering if there is a breakdown that you can give me on

that $50,000. We are only talking here about Professional Services. If you could

let us have a little more information on that particular budgetary item?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This $50,000 that is carried here is really a line item. It is block funding

to enable government to carry on with its obligations in circumstances where we

might - as we are on occasion - be called upon to honor a guarantee. In cases

where we are called upon to honor a guarantee, or where we are called upon to

collect on a debt as a result of a loan guarantee or of some other type of

financial assistance we have given, we do have to engage lawyers, we do have to

engage accountants, and sometimes we have to engage some court costs. This is

just a $50,000 block-funded line item in the Budget to ensure that we have the

ability to incur those expenses and have them covered off in our Budget. There

is no specific projected, anticipated need for this money. It is an as-is-needed

vote so that if a loan guarantee comes up tomorrow, somebody defaults on a loan,

we have to go and make good on that guarantee. We need some money to pay