May 12, 1998 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 24

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome today, twenty-seven Level I students

from St. Joseph's All Grade School in the District of Bellevue. They are accompanied by

their teacher, Paul Watson, and chaperons, Sherry Hackett, Eveline Rideout and Patricia

Coombs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by

Ministers

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to inform my

colleagues that yet another national financial institution has forecast increased economic

growth for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Bank of Montreal today released its regional outlook which again

has this Province leading the country in GDP growth in 1998.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: The bank predicts that real GDP growth will reach 4.4

per cent in 1998 and will continue at a similar pace into 2001.

The Bank of Montreal's report reflects what this government has long

known. Our economy is growing due to activity in our offshore, mining and related

industries, and in our diversified fisheries. Mr. Speaker, I must point out that today's

economic forecast is based on information available in the last several weeks, and so is

current and up to date.

No economy recovers from the reality of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP

declines of the last few years in a matter of weeks or months, but we can see the trend.

Over the space of the last two years, we have gone from a position of decline in real GDP

to significant real GDP growth. April's labour force statistics indicate that there are

9,300 more jobs in this Province over the same time last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: These jobs were created across both goods and service

producing industries. Mr. Speaker, every project, every job created, aids in our goal of a

Newfoundland and Labrador which has an economy that is healthy and growing.

As always, Mr. Speaker, we must exercise caution when we speak of

economic growth. The details of the post-TAGS program will impact on our economic

recovery, and we look forward to finalizing details with the federal government so that we

may determine exactly what impact it may have.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, today's forecast by the Bank of Montreal is

another vote of confidence in the economic turnaround of this Province. It is also a vote

of confidence that this government's plan for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is

working.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Predictions and forecasts are all positive things. However, governments

must also be mindful of the present, must also be mindful of the reality of the present.

We are talking about out-migration of young people in record numbers.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is a new mind-set in this Province and that new mind-set is:

To graduate is to leave. That is the reality, that is the present, and that is what we are

dealing with on a day-to-day basis. We are talking about out-migration; we are talking

about students and lack of work; we are talking about the closure of institutions in our

rural communities. That again, Mr. Speaker, is the reality of the present.

Although we can recognize predictions, and we can recognize future, and

we can recognize further growth, we must recognize what the situation is today for

thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to when

the minister can rise and indicate to the members of this House that there is an increase

in the credit rating for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

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

I rise today to ask hon. members to join me and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador in recognizing today both as International Nurses Day and Canada

Health Day, and the week of May 11-17 as National Nursing Week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This year, Mr. Speaker, the theme of National

Nursing Week is, `Nursing is the Key', a phrase which illustrates the integral role nurses

play in meeting the health needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, you may be interested to note the origin of Nursing Week.

In 1971, the International Council of Nurses selected May 12th as International Nurses Day

due to its significance as Florence Nightingale's birthday. Since 1985, Canadians have

also marked May 12th as Canada Health Day and the week during May 12th as a time to

recognize the dedication and achievements of the nursing profession.

Mr. Speaker, our Province is proud to have over 5,000 nurses who work

as a key element of the health care system in this Province. Nurses are a part of a team

of professionals who are involved in every aspect of our health system, at both the

institutional and community levels. Their presence is crucial to the service delivery

process in acute care hospitals, mental health units, senior citizens home and community

health clinics. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, nurses have made a place in our homes, caring for

our family members, friends and neighbours in the community.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, nurses in this Province have witnessed

many changes in the health system. Over the past year alone my department has initiated

the development of a Nurse Practitioner Programme, just last fall, and the legislation to

go through the House in December of 1997; three pilot projects of Multi-disciplinary

Teaching and Service Units and a Nursing Workload Measurement System, just to name a few.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that the nurses in this Province support these changes

and are meeting the challenges head on and leading the country in advancing nurses and

nurse practitioners.

Mr. Speaker, over the coming week, nurses across the Province will be

participating in special displays, demonstrations and events which are designed to

encourage healthy living, promote illness- prevention and to increase the public's

awareness of the role of nurses in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the nurses in our gallery today.

A special welcome to NLNU President, Debbie Forward, Executive Director of the Association

of the ARNN, and other nurse representatives of these organizations who are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to take a moment during National

Nurses Week to reflect upon the valuable contribution that nurses make to the health and

well-being of our people as is well reflected in the theme, `Nursing is the Key'.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, join with the minister in congratulating nurses on the

outstanding work they do within our health care system, out in the community and within

the different institutions across our Province, and within hospitals too.

I say to the minister: Nurses, yes, have witnessed change in our system

over the last while. They have seen tougher working conditions, more acute-care cases to

handle per nurse -

AN HON. MEMBER: Understaffed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Understaffed - that is correct, understaffed - no pay

increase since 1989. Negotiations have broken down so badly that the president of the

nurses' union indicated just recently, health care cutbacks in areas such as the number of

hospital beds and a reduction in nursing positions have resulted in unsafe conditions for

patients and nurses.

These are some of the things that the minister can do to appreciate the

work that nurses do here in our Province. It is a very valuable work. They are great

contributors to our health care system on all aspects of our system. The minister, who was

a very strong advocate of that in her former position, has not been the same strong

advocate in the position where she can now do something about it, so I ask the minister:

With 25 per cent of nurses as casual nurses - called to work on a moment's notice, cannot

get a mortgage because they are casual - make them permanent when they are getting a full

work week, I say to the minister. Do something about it. Treat nurses with the respect

they should have from this minister.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to acknowledge the terrific service of the

men and women, mostly women, in the nursing profession who have made a terrific

contribution to our health care system down through the years, and are now operating under

great difficulty. Because they are very aware of the needs of patients on the front line,

and they are very aware of what Mr. Tom Kent, former Liberal deputy minister, said last

December about the political betrayal by successive governments which have destroyed the

financial basis on which Medicare was created, Mr. Speaker. I understand that nurses are

under a very severe strain in trying to carry out their duties. I congratulate them for

their efforts.

I note that the date is Florence Nightingale's birthday. We all

obviously recognize the contribution of Florence Nightingale -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - not only to the nursing profession, but also to

public health. On Canada Health Day we share and reflect on our concerns about the health

care system, as well as the great contribution that nurses have made in primary care and

in the kind of care they are giving these days.

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is continuing to

evolve into one of the world's most sought-after travel destinations, and this fact was

never more evident than at last week's Media Marketplace in Toronto.

The Media Marketplace is organized by the Canadian Tourism Commission,

and is one of the North America's pre-eminent gatherings of top-level travel editors and

writers.

This annual event usually alternates between New York and Los Angeles,

and this year for the first time was held in Toronto.

This was a venue where Newfoundland and Labrador took centre stage, by

hosting the keynote luncheon presentation on May 6th.

Through the support of our tourism partners at the event, the Viking

Trail Tourism Association, Canadian Heritage, and Canadian Pacific Hotel Newfoundland, we

presented our unique tourism message to 380 of North America's leading travel influencers.

There is no question we had their attention. The powerful visual

imagery of whales, icebergs, and coastlines, drawn from my department's video library,

presented a captivating backdrop for our tourism messages, and the response was

overwhelming.

The attendance at our function was a telling sign of the interest in

our wonderful Province, as was the activity around our promotional booth, which was booked

beyond capacity to accommodate the huge number of travel professionals seeking information

on Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our impact at the Media Marketplace is receiving national attention via

Canadian Press feature articles, and is also a lead story on the Canoe website, which

stems from the Financial Post and the Sun Newspaper chain.

We have attended such functions before, but rarely have we received

such special attention in a marketplace that featured over 170 competing tourism

interests.

Last year was an exposure breakthrough for Newfoundland and Labrador,

as our Cabot 500 Anniversary Celebrations generated an unprecedented amount of exposure

for our Province.

My department has no intention of letting such global awareness lapse.

We are continuing to build upon our excellent tourism profile, and strategic promotional

endeavours such as the Media Marketplace are key steps for this information process to

continue.

Mr. Speaker, these are excellent venues at which to highlight not only

pending events such as Soiree '99 and the Viking Millennium, but the natural and cultural

experiences we can offer in this Province year after year.

We will continue to seek such cost-effective, strategic presentations

of our rich tourism product, especially in partnership arrangements with our key tourism

players throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear the minister's statement today. It is always good

news when we can get out and promote our tourism industry. As well as what you have done

here, I think we should be promoting the warmth and friendliness of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure in any address that you make you certainly do that.

We certainly welcome this news today. It is great to know that our tourism industry is

being promoted.

I remember a few years ago there was a chap who worked in your

department who used to promote the tourism part of our Province through the sporting

community. I certainly think that that is an area where the minister should look because

there are also all kinds of tourism dollars to be connected through sport. I go back to

the senior ladies softball where we had twenty-six countries in this Province, and last

year with the World Youth, as the minister and the Premier are well aware, where we had

people here, and of course now the Canada Games coming to Corner Brook.

So I think it is great and I thank you for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's always good to see that Newfoundland receives attention in the

media, especially if it is favourable, as the minister has mentioned. You know, I would be

an awful lot happier if the minister was able to report that the tourism dollars and

numbers in this Province were up to a very great extent.

I read recently, Mr. Speaker, that Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

had far more significant increases in tourism spending and dollars last year than

Newfoundland did, despite all of our attention on the Cabot 500. If the minister can turn

this favourable attention into tourism dollars and report on that, I will be able to

congratulate her wholeheartedly and not just say that it's good to get good publicity.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Premier, with respect to Marine Atlantic's

relocation to Port aux Basques. It has been some time now, I guess, the actions of

government, both federally and provincially, and the actions of the people in Port aux

Basques over the last couple of weeks.

I would like to ask the Premier today: What sort of update can he

provide to the people of the Province on what is taking place with respect to that

situation, where the service that exists only for this Province should totally, 100 per

cent, be here? What negotiations or discussions has he or any of his ministers had with

his federal counterpart with respect to that situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions at a

variety of levels between ministers of the government and representatives of Marine

Atlantic, and indeed the federal government. I have been in discussion with the Chairman

of Marine Atlantic and also with the Minister of Transport about this matter.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, some changes were already

announced, and dialogue and discussion are already started with the town of Port aux

Basques. These changes have been received positively in the Province. Indeed, the member

representing the people of Port aux Basques has also been involved directly in these

talks.

I can inform the Leader of the Opposition today that we are looking

forward to renewing a dialogue with Marine Atlantic in the days and weeks ahead, although

we have just been told before Question Period the dialogue will be with somebody new;

because Mr. Rod Morrison, the former president of Marine Atlantic, has left Marine

Atlantic to take up other duties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was called literally five minutes

before Question Period to be advised by the Chairman of Marine Atlantic, Moya Cahill, that

a new acting president will be named before the day is out; the acting president will take

Marine Atlantic through a transition period; and that it is the intention of the

organization, and I believe as well of the Minister of Transport - his office has also

been in touch - to put a new president in place roughly by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, it is the position of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador that such a president must reside in Port aux Basques, in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is one step in the right direction. I

am sure the Premier has had discussions with the people in Port aux Basques, as I have.

I would like to ask him this question: With respect to his discussions

with the federal minister, has he articulated, for example, and enunciated to the federal

minister, that the reservation system for Marine Atlantic, which still exists today as it

did two and three weeks ago, that there are three times as many people in North Sydney

taking reservations as there are in Port aux Basques? And also that the people who are

taking reservations in Newfoundland and Labrador are only allowed to take calls from

Newfoundland and Labrador? Has the Premier talked about that situation? Would he indicate

if there will be any resolve to that, so that people in this Province - all the

reservations should be taken here, and any calls from around the world, not just from this

Province but around the world, will be accepted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition

that a Transition Committee has been established in dialogue in consolation with the

Community of Port aux Basques, with the mayor and council. I believe there was a meeting

involving the Chair of Marine Atlantic, the former President of Marine Atlantic, and the

council, and indeed the Member of the House of Assembly who represents the people of Port

aux Basques, and a committee of councillors of Port Aux Basques, of at-large

representatives of employees or government representatives, and also members of the Marine

Atlantic executive, have been struck. That committee is going to work through each and

every one of these issues. The intent is to ensure that we maximize both the level of

service, the quality of service and the employment opportunity in the Town of Port aux

Basques.

I think it is fair to say - and I hope the Leader of the Opposition

would agree with me - that given the news that I have just relayed to the House, and

indeed through the House to the Province, that the President of Marine Atlantic has now

gone on to other duties, given the news that this position is now open, I think what is

important is to restart a new, and I hope more positive and more productive, dialogue and

to ensure as well that we have a president based right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier did not answer the question. The reality

of the situation is that Rod Morrison did not make the decision not to relocate all that

service to Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a political decision, made by a federal

minister. Whether Mr. Morrison recommended what actually happened or not, the decision

ultimately rested with David Collenette, not with Rod Morrison.

I would like to ask the Premier this: As one of the discussions that he

has had, obviously, with the federal government, it is a fact that today all of the buyers

who buy goods and services for Marine Atlantic are located in the Province of Nova Scotia,

thereby not providing the opportunity for buyers to buy goods and services in this

Province for Marine Atlantic, which exists only for - and only for - this Province.

I would like to ask the Premier this: In terms of government

discussions, is that a situation that we can look forward to being rectified? In other

words, will the buyers for Marine Atlantic be located in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the questions of the Leader of the

Opposition are puzzling but understanding, given the quality of the question that were

asked yesterday about the economy.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is - and this was in the newspaper, it was

made public - that the vice-president in charge of procurement purchasing for Marine

Atlantic is going to be living in and based out of Port aux Basques. That is old news, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reality today that we are going to have a new

President of Marine Atlantic is an important and significant piece of news. I think all of

us would want to unanimously send a greeting to Mr. Morrison to wish him well in whatever

his new endeavours are in the future, but would also look forward to renewed optimism and

expectation to a new executive, to a new team, to a new dialogue, to a new relationship.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a better way to deal

with each of these questions that are being raised other than through the Transition

Committee which was formed in Port aux Basques, with the Port aux Basques Town Council,

with representatives from all of the players, to ensure that the benefits are maximized

and the quality of the service is improved. With respect to procurement - that particular

question - the VP for procurement will be based out of Port aux Basques.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the vice-president for procurement may

be based in Port aux Basques, but the actual people who are buying and purchasing services

are not, Premier. That is the issue.

Another issue I would like to ask the Premier to enlighten us on - I

understand the work with the Transition Committee. I have spoken to members of the

Transition Committee. I understand the work they are doing, and how hopeful and optimistic

they are. If they were not hopeful and optimistic they would not be doing their job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier this question: Is he

aware that all of the maintenance work required on equipment in Port aux Basques is put on

the ferry in Port aux Basques, brought to North Sydney, maintained there and then shipped

back? Is he aware of that situation, and has he talked to the federal counterparts?

Because all of the things being raised today are about further employment opportunities in

that region of the Province. Did the Premier speak to the federal government with respect

to that issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member of the House of Commons for

Port aux Basques is a fellow named Bill Ramsay. I do not know if he has raised any of

these questions, and he sits with that party on the other side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill Matthews, not Bill Ramsay.

PREMIER TOBIN: The House of Commons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry. Yes, of course. I have to distinguish

quality members from those who are of less quality, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the tone of the Leader of the

Opposition is to point out the size of the problem, and we have to seriously investigate

the things he says.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition got up to tell the whole world

how terrible the economy was in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, we have a statement from

the Bank of Montreal saying Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country in GDP growth

from now through to the millennium.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said there were no new jobs in

Newfoundland and Labrador this year over last year; it was only seasonal in nature. Mr.

Speaker, Stats Canada says there are 9,000 new jobs.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: There have been positive changes

with respect to Port aux Basques and the Marine Atlantic operation. I think it is a

positive development that we are going to get a new president for Marine Atlantic. I say

to the Leader of the Opposition: Celebrate good news once in awhile. Quit living under a

dark cloud of pessimism and scorn and negativity!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday's questions

by myself, as Leader of the Opposition, were directed towards - this is for the benefit of

the people in the gallery - the problem with respect to youth unemployment and

opportunities for graduates. What the Premier has put forward today is simply not based on

fact at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the only question - and the reason for

the questions today - is simple this: That service exists for this Province and this

Province only. I have asked the Premier questions today: What was his role? Has he pursued

it on behalf of the people of the Province with respect to getting those services which

are not yet here, here? Has the Premier done that? And is he satisfied with his own

performance and his government's performance on this specific issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I cannot seriously

respond to questions when the Leader of the Opposition gets up and says: Are you satisfied

with your own performance? If he is waiting for me or any other member of this side to get

up and say, `No, I am terribly dissatisfied; I have not done my job.', you are not being

realistic.

I will tell you what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are

waiting for. They are waiting for an acknowledgement that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

are capable of changing their circumstance. They are waiting for an acknowledgement from

the Opposition Party that this Province has a capacity to grow if it has a plan. They are

waiting for some hint of a plan from that side of the House - not doom and gloom, not

negativity, not being told that we cannot succeed, not being told that we are going to

stay in our circumstance, but a recognition that this Province is on the move, and those

who want to help it move should contribute in a positive way, not with more of this doom

and gloom and negativity, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to say where he stands

on Churchill Falls, on (inaudible), on Voisey's Bay, not simply standing and saying: Woe

is me; Newfoundland and Labrador is on the rise. That is bad for my party. It might be

good for the government.

Mr. Speaker, let's take a more mature and constructive approach in this

House, not more doom and gloom, day in and day out!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community

Services. It was almost two months ago in this House that I asked the Minister of Health

and Community Services; and she said she was waiting and expecting within a few weeks the

results of an operational review of the Western Health Care Board by the Atkinson Group.

Her department commissioned a report about a year ago.

In light of the gross mismanagement problems that were occurring with

that particular board and their failure to submit a financial statement since 1995 - that

failure has meant that the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation has been

unable to do an accreditation survey of that board. Now there is obviously some urgency, I

say to the minister, in getting this report, taking action on its recommendations and

getting the financial information to the council, so the Western Memorial Teaching

Hospital is not further compromised.

I ask the minister: Has she received this report, and if not, can she

tell us why not? How much longer will we have to wait before it is completed and she takes

the appropriate action that is long overdue in this regard?

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

Services.

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

I think it is important to respond to the

preamble before getting to

the question because I think there are very important statements that need to be made.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the impact and the quality of care has not

been affected due to this report. We do believe, and we stand by the fact, that there is

solid quality care being delivered by the staff and by all of the people working at

Western Memorial Hospital.

Yes, we are quite anxious to get the report, and I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that this report, the accreditation process, was obviously delayed as I have

explained previously. It makes good solid sense to wait until a review process, which has

a Terms of Reference to look at the needs of the area as well as the financial needs, be

completed before an outside group come in to do the assessment through the accreditation

process. It does not in any way impact on their ability to deliver those services or the

care that they need to deliver, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, as soon as that report is available and we have a chance to

review it, we will implement those actions. Many of those right now, Mr. Speaker, we have

already begun to implement, because we do know that there are things that need to be done.

We have put in place a CEO, we have put in place a financial officer, and they have been

moving forward in trying to redevelop the area to focus more on a regionalized model as

opposed to a centralized model. Those issues are very important, Mr. Speaker, and we will

continue to move forward on them when we get the accurate information, because, Mr.

Speaker, we like to have the information before we make the decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that is a wise move by the minister, to try to get information,

but she said here in the House in March and she said on March 18 in the media, that by the

end of March she would have that and she has not gotten it.

I ask her: Why is there a delay? The minister does not want to admit

why there must be problems.

Now back in 1993, as health critic, I indicated that there were

concerns with farming out all responsibilities to boards and moving away from the

department. The minister at the time said it would improve efficiency and delivery of

health care here in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: In light of the fact that we have

seen nothing but mismanagement, noted by the Auditor General, and numerous incidents in

many boards across this Province, how long is the minister going to continue this

experiment before she goes on and does the job and takes back the reins of the health care

system? I ask the minister: Is she willing to risk accreditation, the teaching hospital

status -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a question, Mr. Speaker. Is she willing to risk

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Is she willing to risk accreditation, the teaching

hospital status and recruitment at Western Memorial, just to keep from admitting she made

a mistake?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, and I will say it

again in this House, if that member across the way expects me to condemn volunteers, board

members, staff and overall boards, you are asking the wrong minister, Mr. Speaker; because

I stand by the work of these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In the House the other day, Mr. Speaker, he

referred to the lies that were being presented to me. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I will

not condemn the boards. I think the volunteer boards are doing fine work. We have all

admitted, Mr. Speaker, that we are going through a challenging and changing time in our

health care system. We have just integrated services that the former House Leader stood

and commended us for, because we are moving towards integrating services for children, for

open corrections, for family rehabilitative services, and bringing them all under

alignment with health.

Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty moving forward on information, but I

will also say, if we know there are difficulties there is no way we are going to make

decisions and move forward. I've been very clear in this House that we have deferred the

transfer of financial administration to two boards in this Province, because until we are

confident they are able to do the work, we won't do it, and we will stand by that.

Am I going to condemn all the boards? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not the department that the service comes under, it is the job

that is done and the delivery of that service, I say to the minister, and it hasn't been

done under this department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: A year ago, Minister, you were appointed the job of

administering health care in our Province. Since that time, the Western Health Care

Corporation has been without a full-time CEO. By the way, the new CEO said that he

attributes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind the hon. member he is on a supplementary. There ought

not to be any

preambles to supplementary questions. That leads to debate rather than

questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about over there?

MR. FRENCH: What about over on the other side? What about the other

side?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Due to the fact that the current CEO said, having

instability, only a part-time position, has led to a problem with accreditation and

recruitment, and in light of the fact that the Corporation has not submitted a financial

statement during your term as minister, I ask the minister: When are you going to start to

deal with this problem that is going on, mismanagement, and start doing the job you were

appointed to do over a year ago?

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

Services.

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

We, on this side of the House, try to do two things. We try to gather

the information we need, make decisions based on the evidence, and use common sense in

administering a system through our boards. Mr. Speaker, we have been quite honest and

upfront with the people of this Province when we identified that there were difficulties

in the financial administration. Why would you have an accreditation process, have these

officials come in and make a report, when we ourselves are in the process of finding the

information and coming to conclusions on very important issues? We aren't going to do it,

and we won't be forced into doing it, because we take our jobs seriously and we will act

responsibly, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We haven't had a financial statement since 1995, Minister; a public

accountability of public funds, I say to the minister. All I asked the minister in my

initial question, that she got so excited about - I said it was due in March. I ask the

minister in simple language, if she can calm down and answer a simple little question: You

said on March 18, Minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, are you going to control that crowd over

there or what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said on March 18 it would be ready by

the end of the month. The minister made that statement in the public media on March 18.

Minister, you were expecting it then. The same question I ask in a different manner, I

will say to the minister: Why -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Why isn't the report available? Give us the reason

why. It was going to be ready within twelve days back in March. Where is it two months

later, I ask the minister? What is the reason?

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

Services.

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

Speaking about excited, I'm glad we have the gallery full with my

colleagues to tend to your needs, because of your excitement here today in asking the

questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of

order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just pray to God that the response will be a lot more adequate than

the minister's response, I would say, on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a set of questions for the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods, but in his absence maybe I can direct them to the Premier.

Premier, there is much concern and anxiety being expressed these days

by thousands of people around the Province regarding your government's efforts to

implement a watershed management plan. Some people are fearful that it is government's

intention to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador's prime salmon rivers, and the residents

will have to ask permission to buy extra licences from outfitters or a particular

watershed management group in order to fish their favourite rivers.

Premier, most of the efforts by your minister to alleviate the fears of

river privatization up until now have not worked. I ask the Premier what he or his

officials plan on doing to respond to the growing discontent of those concerned citizens

on both sides, I might add, of this particular issue, and if he is considering holding

policy sessions across the Province to allow those people to voice their views and

opinions?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I never had an opportunity to finish my answer that was interrupted by

the previous point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not see the minister standing, so I just assumed she had

completed the answer and we moved on. If we want to revert, if it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No leave? I thought you wanted the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You do not want the answer? Okay, fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that when

confronted with either the Minister of Health and Community Services or the Premier, they

shook in fear of the Minister of Health and Community Services and took the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for

his question on river privatization because it gives me an opportunity to say something

which I know the member knows to be the case, and something which has been repeated over

and over and over again by the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, and that is:

There is no policy to privatize rivers in Newfoundland and Labrador. There will never be a

policy to privatize rivers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The rivers of Newfoundland and Labrador belong to

all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and will always belong to all of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and anybody who wants to privatize the rivers or

limit the access to the rivers, that individual, Mr. Speaker, shall be run off the end of

a wharf!

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier if there has been any pressure brought on his

government to privatize rivers and watershed areas in Newfoundland and Labrador; and, if

there has been, is it fair to say that it may have started in 1992, after the moratorium

of the commercial Atlantic salmon fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I can say to the member - I know he

asks these questions seriously - there has been no pressure brought on this government to

privatize rivers and, more to the point, the government would never consider privatizing

rivers.

I think it is fair to say that no party in this House, on either side

of this House, nor any member in this House, would ever sit and tolerate the notion that

something which is really the heritage of all of the people of the Province should be, in

some way, regulated to be only available to the privileged few. That is not something we

in this Province should ever contemplate, should ever consider, or whatever tolerate.

I want to say to the member - and I thank him for his question - let me

say very clearly so there can be no doubt whatsoever: There will never be a river

privatization under this Administration or, I would venture to say, under any

Administration in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stands to say that there has never been any

pressure brought on his government. I say to the Premier that the MP for Humber - St.

Barbe, Mr. Gerry Byrne, the former executive assistant to you, Premier, was quoted in The

Humber Log on April 15, 1998, as saying that: the pressure to privatize Newfoundland's

salmon resources picked up momentum in 1992 when hundreds of commercial salmon fishermen

were encouraged to surrender their licences.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the Premier: Who are we to believe, Premier?

You or the Member for Humber - St. Barbe?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope this is not another occasion

when the member opposite, as is so often the case, stands up and selectively quotes out of

context from interviews and then suggests some meaning for the interviews.

Mr. Speaker, jigging on the river for a story that is not there is an

occupation which is very familiar to members on that side of the House but is not familiar

to members on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the

Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

The latest report on child poverty has been released, and the results

are not good for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. According to statistics just

released by the National Council of Welfare, 27,000 children in this Province subsist

below the poverty line, and in single-parent families the rate of child poverty is 72.1

per cent. I guess that is an acknowledgement of how far we are going, isn't it, Mr.

Premier? It is the highest in the country. Eleven thousand children in single-parent

families in this Province live in poverty. I don't know about you, but I find these

results appalling. Is the minister concerned by these results, or is she as content as the

Premier was yesterday to dismiss this evidence of failure of his government as nothing but

negativity?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that the issue of

child poverty is a very serious one, and it is one that all governments, and particularly

this government, are concerned about. I would only ask the members opposite to reflect on

some of the key priorities we have made in this current Budget in order to recognize that

this government has taken significant moves to try and address the fundamental issues of

child poverty.

I would refer specifically to the active employment measures that we

have taken to address this issue, because I think most people would recognize that the way

out of poverty is through employment. We know we need to help parents find employment, and

this will be a major and very fundamental improvement in the circumstances of children in

families across this Province.

In this current Budget we have addressed this in some very active ways.

For example, the member referred to the circumstances of single-parent families. In this

current Budget we have announced a pilot project to provide an income support initiative

where we can supplement the income of single parents so that they can increase their

attachment to the workforce. We have announced pilot projects in the area of extending the

drug card benefits so that families who are on social assistance can move into the

workforce and retain drug and medical coverage for their families and their children.

These are very significant ways that we are addressing this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

is drawing to an end.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you.

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

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time to present a petition from 104 residents of the

Province of Newfoundland, many from the Burin Peninsula, and many from Your Honour's

district, from places like Winterton, New Perlican, and Lower Island Cove, which I believe

is in the Speaker's district. These petitioners are concerned about the level of poverty

in the Province and see a partial answer to that in a special program, a universal

comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help

end child hunger and give our children a better chance.

This gives me an opportunity to elaborate on some of the comments of

the Member for St. John's West in relation to the latest child poverty figures coming out

of the National Council of Welfare. This Province has an appalling record in terms of its

poor children who are every day going to school hungry, as has been recognized by a number

of reports.

The minister's feeble attempt to respond to the question ignored the

fact that her government is clawing back from social assistance recipients the Child Tax

Benefit, which is designed to put extra dollars in the pockets of families with children.

If this program, which was announced by the minister, Paul Martin, in last year's budget,

and ballyhooed by this government here for the last two years, was aimed at poor children,

why is it that the poorest of the children are having their benefits clawed back? The

children who live in poverty are, in the main, those who live on social assistance.

So we have a situation where there are incredible amounts of child

poverty and this is not something that has been changing for the good in this Province. In

fact, it has been changing for the worse in this Province where we had, in 1996, with the

latest figures enumerating a change, a 50 per cent increase in child poverty in this

Province from 1989. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that we should be collectively ashamed

of but which the government has the responsibility and the ability to change.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that even though we recognize that an additional $1

million was put towards the program for school lunches and school meal programs in the

Province, the fact of the matter is that the government is still relying on a volunteer

program which anticipates and expects that the community be able to provide the volunteer

effort and the means to make a program work. Mr. Speaker, this cannot happen as a

volunteer effort. It will not happen as a volunteer effort, particularly in those areas

where children need a program of this nature the most.

We have situations, Mr. Speaker, in this Province where communities

just don't have the resources available through the volunteer sector or through the

charitable sector even if we thought it desirable to do so. They just don't have the

resources to put together a program of this nature. The reality of this situation, Mr.

Speaker, is that there must be a needs-based, not a charity-based, a needs-based program

so that every school child in this Province is guaranteed to have an opportunity for a

full stomach, Mr. Speaker. That can help end child hunger in our Province and also give

our school children a better chance and a better opportunity to be able to learn from our

educational system and to improve their lot in life.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many, many petitions that I have received

and have been presenting on behalf of residents of this Province. I hope, Mr. Speaker,

that the government and government members opposite are listening to the pleas of the

people of this Province, to help end child hunger in this Province and to give our

children a better chance to learn and obtain a proper education so that they too can have

an opportunity to participate fully in the benefits of education and in the benefits that

our great country has to offer. Unfortunately, our great country is suffering from a great

disparity of wealth and poverty where the poor are indeed getting poorer and the rich are

indeed getting richer to an extent, Mr. Speaker, that is unconscionable in this country

and is something that we ought to put an end to.

We, in this Province, can help, particularly poor children, by

supporting a program whereby every school in this Province would have either a School

Lunch Program or a School Breakfast Program which would meet the needs of children for

nutrition and also give them a good start on a day of learning, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all hon. members for their support of this petition.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand at this particular point in time, Mr. Speaker, not to appear to

be making any political points on a particular point of order. I deliberately waited until

the Question Period was over and had intended to stand before Petitions, but got a little

caught up, and indeed to let it go too far would not at all be appropriate.

Parliament is a marvellous institution and it allows for all kinds of

varieties of emotions and temperament in debate, but the rules are designed, Mr. Speaker,

to ensure that the rules are carried out effectively, efficiently and that the House

operates smoothly and effectively.

Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I will get to the point of order: Our

House, if you look at the proceedings of the day, you will see is divided into two

sections. For the point of order that I want to make, this demonstrates it very well. One

of the areas where there is a lot of confusion caused in our House is on matters on which

there is debate, where there is supported to be no debate. There is only one place in the

House where there is debate and that is when there is a motion before the floor, whether

it is the Throne Speech, which is a motion, whether it is the Budget Speech, which is in

the form of a motion, whether it is a government motion or whether it is a private

members' motion.

If hon. members will look at the first section, therefore, of the

proceedings of the House, they will see all of these items on which there is no motion,

therefore on which there is no debate: Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions; Presenting

Reports By Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motion; Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given; and Petitions. None of those areas permit debate, because

there is no motion before the House. With all of the proceedings, those that have motions

and those that do not, there are rules so that we operate in a modest manner, in a

temperate manner and in a civilized manner.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order today was to rise on Statements by

Ministers. I believe that hon. members want to do things correctly but I believe in the

last little while, that we have been really stretching the rules with Statements by

Ministers. I do this because I know that hon. members want to speak in a proper fashion. I

know that they want to speak before the galleries in a proper fashion, with civility and

with propriety.

Mr. Speaker, I refer hon. members to page 107, Statements by Ministers.

I am not going to read them all, but hon. members can go to their Beauchesne and look at

what the requirements are. I will go to ' 350 which says, "The Speaker has emphasized that both

the Government and Opposition contributions should be brief and factual. The purpose of

the ministerial statement is to convey information, not to encourage debate."

Mr. Speaker, I think that is something we should all follow and I bring

it to the attention of all hon. members because, as I have said before, I know that they

want to do things correctly, that they want to ensure that everything they do is done

within the rules of the House, and that it is done with civility and with propriety.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of

the order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Terra Nova raised an important point, granted, with

reference to statements, but as a former Speaker, the member knows quite well there are

many instances in Question Period too of points of order. We could be continuously

standing on relevancy.

I know Mr. Speaker tries to give certain latitudes and still maintain a

certain order here in the House. Opposition is entitled in Ministerial Statements, and it

should be a particular statement - we have seen Ministerial Statements thrown out on

issues that have been out in the public two and three times before, that are not relevant

as Ministerial Statements; and I questioned that too, Mr. Speaker. We respond to such

statements within a time limit and, I might add, our responses are, almost all of the

time, confined to the statements.

While we are on this particular point of order - I know the member

meant it specific to statements, but in Question Period the responses are completely out

of the context of relevancy to the issue, and it is an opportunity at times - we do rise,

but very rarely in Question Period. Very, very rarely have we, I say, in this session

raised a point of order in Question Period at any particular time, because we know certain

latitudes happen on both sides of the House.

We certainly concur, if you are going to follow the book strictly, Mr.

Speaker, in line with the Parliamentary procedure and rules here, they apply to Question

Period and Answers to Questions equally, as well as to Statements by Ministers.

I just want to make that particular point. I know the member wanted to

remind us all that we cannot stray too far away from the rules of order, Parliamentary

Rules, as laid out in Beauchesne and in other Parliamentary editions and authorities.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would just like to make a comment. I do not

think, in particular, that the Chair has been asked to rule on what the hon. member has

said. I think he has made a very important point and that is, that debate in the House

takes place only when there is a motion before the House. Ministerial Statements are not

intended to stimulate debate and debate is certainly not permitted. The point that the

hon. member has raised is indeed a valid point.

I want to also mention, I guess, the Question Period. The Chair has

allowed some latitude. Members know that Question Period is not a period for debate. With

a lead question, there should be a brief

preamble, supplementary questions should follow

from ministers' responses and they ought to require no

preamble, and ministers' responses

ought to be brief.

Members know that once you get into long

preambles, ministers will take

the opportunity to respond to the

preamble. That is why it is important that we follow our

own Standing Orders on this issue, when we get into Question Period. The Chair does not

dictate what the topics will be and the Chair cannot dictate the answers the members give.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

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

I would like to take just a few minutes to support the petition of the

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

There are, in fact, 40,000 children who go to school in Newfoundland

hungry every day. This was put forth in the report by Patricia Canning. We have seen, by

the release today from National Child Welfare, just what the rate of poverty is in our

Province; 72.1 per cent of children from single parent homes are living in poverty. This

must indicate to us that very many of these children are going to school hungry. In order

to learn children must be fed; children cannot learn on an empty stomach.

This government has the opportunity to implement a school lunch

program, one that does not depend on volunteers, to help feed some of the 72 per cent of

children who are hungry in the classrooms. When they are in the classroom and they have a

full stomach, then they can learn and have a better chance of getting a better education,

and with a better education they have a chance of getting out and getting good employment,

which will help to break the cycle of poverty as it exists in our Province today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole.

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 (Oldford): Order No. 2, Committee of Supply Estimates,

Executive Council.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand today, where I adjourned debate yesterday afternoon, just to

continue for a few minutes on some of the questions that were raised under the heading of

Executive Council.

In particular we talked briefly about the Office of the Executive

Council, the Premier's Office, the Cabinet Secretariat, under that heading Executive

Support, and various agencies, in particular the Economic Policy Analysis branch, the

Social Policy Analysis, Offshore Fund - Administration, etcetera.

Yesterday in the House a few questions were raised, and maybe the

minister can respond to a few of the questions that were raised by members on this side of

the House as they relate to the Office of the Executive Council.

We note at the beginning that this year expenditures under the heading,

Office of the Executive Council, are expected to increase by some 37 per cent, totalling

$2,416,600. I would be interested, in due course, in hearing from the minister, in

particular the explanation for such an increase as it relates to the Office of the

Executive Council, and as indicated, almost $2.5 million.

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we were discussing, at the time of

adjournment, the office of Social and Fiscal Policy, on page 20 of the Estimates. Under

that heading we found in the 1998/99 Estimates an increase from $143,000 to $234,800 under

the heading of Salaries; Transportation and Communications, also an increase of almost

$5,000; and Professional Services up $12,000. So again we question the minister as to the

nature of these services, the reason why they were requested and provided, and the

purpose, of course, that was derived as a result of these services being provided to

government.

Also under Resource and Economic Policy, under the Intergovernmental

Affairs Secretariat, we see again an increase in Salaries, a significant increase in

Transportation and Communications and Supplies. The total amount to be voted under that

section is $292,400.

Under Executive Support under Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs

Secretariat, again an increase in Salaries. We see Transportation and Communications, a

cost of $100,000, up slightly from the revised figures of 1997/98; Professional Services

again being increased by some $15,000; and Property, Furnishings and Equipment showing

$3,000, where in fact last year there was no expenditure under the revised figures for

1997/98.

Under Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, on page 22, again

the same pattern is shown: An increase in Salaries; a significant increase in

Transportation and Communications, which presumably, on this particular issue, can be

relatively easily explained; Supplies, an increase; and both Purchased and Professional

Services, significant increases over the previous year.

It is clear under almost every heading, I say to members opposite. We

see significant increases, particularly as it relates to Salaries, as it relates to

Professional Services, as it relates to services purchased by government, as it relates to

furniture and as it relates to Transportation and Communications. It should come as no

surprise, Mr. Chairman, that such an increase is, in fact, what we see at the end of the

day, when we consider that under the Office of Executive Council there is an expected

increase of 37 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the answers being given and provided by

the minister, in detail, as we continue our discussion and these debates with respect to

Expenditure under Executive Council.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the hon. member, it would be easier for us to look at this and

handle it if the member would give me a particular heading and particular question with

respect to a certain item because broad -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, but the hon. member related a whole lot of

different areas and a whole lot of different things. If he wants specific answers, it

would be more advantageous, with leave of the Chair, if the hon. member does not mind -

the former Leader of the Opposition and I, let me put it that way, did it last year, and

that was fairly productive; back and forth. I do not mind answering the questions but to

jump around from category to category I think would be confusing for the record and

possibly ourselves. So specific questions on specific areas, I would be happy to answer

them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will do that. In fact, we started moving there yesterday. I know the

minister was tied up in meetings at the time, and we fully understand that. So, I will

just run through it in order and ask some of the questions. I am sure some of my

colleagues will follow up with another few hours of intense questions.

Government House: I am going to leave that for my colleague for

Bonavista South. I will skip by that one.

The Premier's Office: I just cannot pass by that one. There is an

increase in salary there. It seems the increase is more than the extra pay period, because

an extra pay period generally is about 4 per cent, approximately. So, an extra pay period

would be about $26,000 which would make it $682,000, and we do have an extra $25,000. So,

is there one extra position? I never brought my Salary Details book. I left it upstairs, I

say to the minister. So, is there an extra -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: If you have one, sure. In fact, I think I might have

an extra one here. I always keep a spare one.

Anyway, I will ask that of the minister, and maybe a couple there so we

don't go to far afield under this heading. Then after the Premier's Office, I will sit

down. Would the minister would like to deal with the Premier's Office first, or just one

sub-heading at a time? Maybe I will ask one question and then sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We can handle it either way. Perhaps several questions and then I can

answer them.

I just say to the hon. member: I believe the extra pay period in the

Salary vote is approximately $22,907. There is $5,982 in step increases. So that is

approximately $23,000 plus $6,000, and that puts you up to $29,000, almost $30,000. That

is the bulk of the increase.

As far as I am aware, there is no other extra salary position. That

would not cover it. So it is just regular step increases. You get about $23,000 for the

extra pay period.

MR. SULLIVAN: I assume the rest must be those hefty step

progressions with new staff come in and, I guess, starting way down there. I guess that

accounts for the difference, you know, those lowly paid staff members in the Premier's

office, I imagine.

MR. DICKS: They are usually out of step.

MR. SULLIVAN: Out of step, yes. I can see why. It does take time to

adjust and acclimatize to a different gait and a different pace here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I can see that. The minister certainly has problems with that.

Employee Benefits: There is a marked increase. It is not a fortune

there, but from a $1,000 to $2,500 under Employee Benefits. That is a significant increase

there. That is well over a double increase there in that area. I will let him answer that,

and I will ask another one too, I guess, because that should have a brief explanation.

There was a significant amount last year expended in Transportation and

Communications. I am sure all the Premier's exploits are not there. I ask the minister:

When he travels on other areas that might be related to industry, would that travel be

relegated to that particular department? If he travels on a fishery issue, would that come

under the fisheries department? What exactly is the breakdown on Transportation and

Communications, 2.1.01.03?

With those couple of questions, I will sit down and let the minister

respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: First of all, Mr. Chairman, with regard to 2.1.01.02,

Employee Benefits, it is actually not an increase. It is the same budgeted amount as last

year; $2,500 was budgeted, $1,000 was spent. A similar amount was budgeted this year. You

are seeing a lot of small categories like furniture and things like that. It might be

$25,000 budgeted and $22,000 spent. Moderate amounts like that are usually put in again. I

just point out that this also includes conference and registration fees. Last year it was

$1,000, maybe $2,500, maybe $1,300, but that is relatively a small amount.

On the $145,000, the amount spent was $182,000. That included not only

the Premier's travel; it also included telephone costs, fax machines, cell phones and

courier services. It would also include the cost of any person who accompanied the

Premier, any of the Members of the House of Assembly who went along to any conferences or

any meetings that the Premier had as well.

With regard to the other question, I don't know that any other of the

Premier's expenses are charged off to any other departments. I am only in charge of

Executive Council, and as far as I know these are the expenses that the Premier himself

and Members of the House of Assembly incur.

The other reason the expenses were up last year was there was a lot of

additional travel last year because of the Voisey's Bay stuff, the Innu lands claims and

Churchill Falls. It was a busier year than would normally be the case.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Voisey's Bay, that would be under Executive Council, too. So if he

travelled under that, his travel would still come under the Premier's Office rather than

under Executive Council, under another sub-heading?

MR. DICKS: I presume so, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Presume but not necessarily so?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: All of my travel, for example, comes out of my travel. I

presume it is done the same, but you would have to ask the individual minister; I don't

know. As far as I know, all of the Premier's expenses related to Executive Council would

come out of this.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that is basically my question.

MR. DICKS: Yes, as far as I know that is the case.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, that is basically my question, if all of the Premier's travel,

under Executive Council, comes under this particular heading here. That was basically my

question.

There were Purchased Services last year of $26,500 budgeted and $32,500

expended. So there was $6,000, a 25 per cent increase in Purchased Services. I would be

interested in knowing exactly what is included there.

Under Allowances and Assistance also, it was my understanding, if I

remember correctly from last year, I believe that jumped up to $23,500 if we look at last

year's Estimates, or the expenditure from the previous year. I am sure the minister might

have it back to then. I think that was the allowance that was given - I guess a direct

allowance for the basic cost of entertaining at home or whatever, related to the Premier

at home. That is the one that the former Premier instituted there, I understand now. It

was up. I remember asking last year: Why would it be up to $23,000 for last year - but it

is showing here budgeted $20,000? Was that for some other purpose other than that in the

past and we are back to $20,000 again? So those two things here, that particular question

and why 25 per cent in Purchased Services?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, the Purchased Services account is for

expenses for entertainment when the Premier is travelling, meetings with people, hiring

rooms or paying expenses for lunches, coffees, and things like that. I find, generally

speaking across government, the two go together, that the more people are called on to go

to meetings - normally the other types of incidental expenses of travel are related to

each other. So it is up by $6,000. The travel is also up as well.

With regard to the second question, $20,000 is the amount that was

instituted. The former Premier had an official residence. At one time Frank Moores, I

believe, had the place on the hill. Then, when Brian Peckford had it for a time he decided

to pay for an apartment at taxpayers' expense. It has always been the case, over the last

twenty-five years or so, that the Premier has been furnished with a residence, or an

allowance in lieu of an official residence. It started with Premier Brian Peckford. He

maintained an apartment at Tiffany Towers that cost the taxpayers about $20,000. When Mr.

Wells became Premier, instead of taking the apartment or something else, he felt it was

appropriate - and Cabinet and the House agreed - for an allowance of $20,000, and that

continues.

The third part of his question related to the expense last year. I

don't recall an extra $3,000 in that. If so, I don't know what that would have been. We

can come back to that. I really don't know what that might have been. I should say, it has

always been $20,000 for the allowance for the Premier for residence.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, when I get back again, if not today another day, I will check on

it. I am recalling that from memory. I do know it was up and I raised a question: Why has

that been increased?

Also, there is an increase in Purchased Services as we mentioned in 06.

I am just wondering if any of the entertainment costs at home, and other related costs, if

there are costs covered under that heading there, rather than out of the $20,000 that the

Premier is given, that he must provide for? I mean, there are certain costs. He may invite

groups to his home and have to entertain or provide some costs, whether it is sandwiches,

hors-d'oeuvres, and the cost of entertaining at home sometimes. I know it has happened

with certain groups that went there, the general public at large. I am not talking about

private gatherings, now. Is there anything expended out of Purchased Services there? Or is

it the intention that any entertaining at home is supposed to come out of this $20,000?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No. The amount spent for - you know, if he has a

cocktail party for canapes, or if it is coffee supplied for meetings, and so on like that,

that comes out of Purchased Services. The $20,000 is an allowance. It is in the nature of

an amount paid, the same as a car allowance, a housing allowance, and so on. It is not

meant to be offset against any particular expenditures used for entertainment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will just move along to 2.2.01. Once again I would assume Salaries,

there is very little difference; that would be basically just the extra pay period.

Twenty-seven pay periods this year?

The Employee Benefits, I know they are budgeted back to what they were,

but they were down a little. I am just wondering maybe whether there is any particular -

this seems to be happening in a couple of areas in particular here. I know it is a similar

question I asked in the other one, but it is in a similar heading here.

Also, under Purchased Services, again last year there was $50,900

budgeted. Was there a particular area forecasted that they might have anticipated having

to expend in that area, and it wasn't expended this year, and now they are budgeting for

that amount again? Or is it there because historically it has normally been that amount,

and therefore they put it in there as a measure to ensure there is a sufficient amount

allocated under this heading?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you.

In response to the questions, first of all, the amount for Salaries

increase is approximately $30,000 in direct costs. There is $20,312 for the extra pay

period, and $6,737 for the step increases, which rounds out close to the amount. Because

revised last year was $668,200 as the hon. member can see.

The second issue was Employee Benefits. These categories - so it is our

membership, conference and registration fees. So it is often the case that we will send

someone away to a conference that is appropriate, and $5,000, given the number of

employees, seems like an appropriate amount. We in fact spend less in this category, both

the Premier's Office and in Cabinet executive support.

The Purchased Services, this category covers meeting room rentals and

expenses associated with Cabinet and its various committee meetings. There are also

photocopier and printing charges for all divisions of the Cabinet Secretariat. I think it

has just been in the vicinity of $50,000, so if the Cabinet meets outside St. John's,

depending on where they are and the length of stay, there might be more or less charges

for not hotel rooms but for the conference rooms and things like that. That is what the

money is used for. We don't spend a lot in that category, as you can see.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So if the Cabinet meets on the West Coast, for example, I guess each

minister would pick up the cost of their particular rooms and so on -

MR. DICKS: Hotel room.

MR. SULLIVAN: - hotel, under their basic own department's

minister's budget, I would assume.

MR. DICKS: Yes. I should point out as well that I believe I see my

hon. colleague, the hon. Government House Leader, had a committee of Cabinet, that

economic policy that went around to various parts of the Province. While the travel

expenses and hotel rooms would be paid by the ministers themselves, the meeting rooms, and

if they have coffee or something like that, would come out of this vote. That is the same

for the Social Policy Committee and so on like that. The expenses are related solely to

the cost of the meetings themselves, and not the ministers' and the staff's travel

expenses.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot say I concur, Mr. Chairman, with the

Government House Leader on all this here. We didn't get an opportunity to get to your

department, unfortunately.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He was up trying to do a service, I say to the

Government House Leader, trying to help keep people off the social assistance lines here

in our Province, to help that bright forecast the minister forecasted here today. I am

just waiting anxiously now for the next report by Moody's and Standard and Poor's

Corporation, the Dominion Bond Rating Service. A triple A, I am expecting the next time if

the minister's and the Premier's forecasts are as bright as they should be. I will be

wearing shades and having someone read to me the credit rating of the Province by Moody's.

I would say that -

MR. DICKS: One hopes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You would be in some shape then, I say to the

Government House Leader. What an economy we will have then.

I must say to the Government House Leader, he does not have much

confidence in his Finance Minister over there - he is looking for a Finance Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is an admission. He should have stood in his

place, I say, and voted against that Budget if he has that little confidence in his

Finance Minister. He is trying to get him out of there already.

MR. DICKS: We were going to, but we heard you were in such fear and

trepidation of an election that we had to vote against the non-confidence motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the member, please do not accuse me of

conveying that to you.

Economic Policy Analysis: $226,400 to support Economic Policy Analysis.

Salaries, I would assume again, if we look at the past indication, the salary increase

would only be about $6,000 or $7,000 basically by the extra pay period, and we have the

extra amount either in extra salary or an unfilled position and now it is back up again,

or whatever the case may be. That is usually what happens, I think, in cases; there might

be a position. Maybe when the minister stands he could comment on that.

Employee Benefits. What I meant to mention in the last two, Employee

Benefits here are basically benefits and paying costs, as the minister mentioned, rather

than - I guess payroll burdens are already included. If they are being included, are they

included in the Salaries parts? Under what aspect would the payroll burden - our

contribution, as we say, to EI and CPP and all these normal payroll burdens - where

exactly would that be included in each of these?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the Employee Benefits throughout Executive Council, and I

suspect in most departments, are small amounts and are meant to cover conference and

membership fees and professional associations. So, if you have a CA or a lawyer or someone

like that in the Department of Justice, certain people, because of the nature of their job

belong to professional organizations. That is what Employee Benefits here cover.

The payroll burden for Canada Pension, Unemployment Insurance and

things like that, government's contribution, is in the Department of Finance. I know, when

we had our Estimates hearings the other day, we had it and it is a vote in the order of

about $27 million. I do not have my total estimates with me, but all those amounts are

consolidated in the Department of Finance. If I had a copy of the book I could point it

out to the hon. member, but as you go through these - as you say, these are small amounts

allotted really for training or for conferences that people might attend.

I am sure the hon. member knows certain conferences to which I am

referring. In municipal they might have a National Federation of Municipalities conference

and we might send someone from Municipal Affairs; that would be covered off there. As the

hon. member says, the additional amounts are for the extra pay period around $6,166, and

one of the employees had a step increase and that was about $1,600. But I will see if I

can get a copy of the Estimates and identify where the entry is for the Employee Benefits,

government's contribution, not what is deducted from your salary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under Social Policy Analysis now, I know we have been waiting to see

some movement afoot in social policy. I know that since before the last election in 1996,

even prior to that, as my colleague from Waterford Valley would be very much aware, we

were supposed to have our Social Strategic Plan, and all the efforts manned by a former

minister involved, and a person designated, way back, with deputy minister status, to work

on that - and waiting for results. All we have seen so far is a period of years elapse and

we have nothing done.

I am just wondering now, and I ask the minister, under Salaries, we

have a significant increase of 61.4 per cent in expenditure over last year in Salaries

under Social Policy Analysis. The minister would certainly be able to enlighten me on what

is in that particular area. Out of the rest of those under Social Policy, there are no

great variations from previous years, but this one is significant. So, if the minister

could enlighten me there.

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

MR. DICKS: First of all, with respect to the government

contributions, if you look at page 34 of the Estimates, 1.3.01, Government Personnel

Costs, this is our share of the Employee Benefits, and it also includes Pay Equity, but

that would be our CPP contributions. So that is where that is found. We do not carry it as

an Employee Benefit in the individual departmental estimates.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would that be all payrolls, because there are certain

payrolls done - Works, Services do their own. Would that be under Works, Services or is

that here too?

MR. DICKS: No. Any Employee of government-

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyone?

MR. DICKS: Yes, anybody paid directly by government would be

included in this amount.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. DICKS: With respect to the Salaries, I can tell the hon. member

that we have allotted for the cost of two permanent and one temporary position under

Social Policy Analysis. There are two Social Policy Programming Analysts. One is at

$50,000 and the other is at about $40,000. It looks to me as if there are three people in

that category there. I can give the hon. member the total. I do not know if I should use

the names. I can give their salaries, if that is appropriate. Just let me say this, that-

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the positions will be fine.

MR. DICKS: Yes. There are two positions at $42,000, and there is a

position at $59,414. That is a total of $101,000. Then there is an extra pay period for

$3,900 and a salary Increase of $3,900 this year, which is budgeted. There is a Social

Policy Analyst, contractual, of $50,900 for Strategic Social Plan, and I expect that is

the extra amount there for the most part. The Strategic Social Plan has a contractual

Policy Analyst attached, and the salary is held in this vote.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The detail book shows the $101,698 for two Social Policy Program

Analysts, and then there is the one other besides.

MR. DICKS: I should point out for the hon. member, that is a

contractual position, not a permanent government position. So I suspect that when the

Strategic Social Plan is finished, that that would lapse and go back to its normal

staffing.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just two basic things, under this particular specific

vote here under Salaries. Under this heading there are just those two Social Policy

Analysts.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: For the $101,698?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. And there is a contractual position that

accounts for the difference?

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, Offshore Fund - Administration, 2.2.04: Under

Salaries here, once again the amount budgeted is a slight increase over what was budgeted

last year. The difference there is really close to an extra salary, if you allocate it

there. There was only $52,500 actually expended last year. Was there a position vacant for

some time and now the position now filled? What would be the reason for that, I ask the

Minister?

Also, two other questions under this heading. Under Professional

Services, there was $37,300 budgeted and $15,000 expended; a revised figure which is very

significant. Was there some anticipated aspect of Professional Services or has it

historically been in the $37,000 range in the past?

The last one, under Purchased Services, is a similar question. I will

ask there again: Why that amount when we did not expend any last year? Those three

particular items, 01, 05 and 06.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the hon. Opposition House Leader is correct. There are two

positions there, that account - I will give him the breakdown. One is an Analyst at about

$42,000. The other is a Clerk-Steno position at close to $22,641. That is a subtotal of

$64,689. If you add in the extra pay period at approximately $2,500, a salary increase of

$1,900, a step progression of $677 and temporary assistance and overtime of $9,800, that

will get you up to $79,600 for the current year.

I suspect, as the hon. member says, that where this was set up, the

staffing was a little late, because both people in the position where temporally assigned

to this position from other positions. So they are in there temporarily, which I would

conclude meant that they probably came some time during the last fiscal year. What we see

here is the full amount had it run last year from the beginning of the year to the end,

and that looks not to have been the case. This year we expect we will pay out the full

salary because they will be there for the whole year.

The hon. member's second question had, I believe, to do with

Professional Services, sub-category .05. We had budgeted $37,300 for the hiring of an

independent auditing firm. The bill, unusually, came in at $15,000 rather than the amount

we had set. We expected it to be somewhat higher.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2.2.05, Economic Renewal Agreement Administration: Once again, to make

sure we are on the right wavelength, I guess that is basically administration of the

Economic Renewal Agreement that was announced, I think, in June, 1995. It was there at, I

think, Hotel Newfoundland, the $100 million agreement over a five-year period at, I think,

$20 million a year; 80 per cent federal and 20 per cent provincial. That is my

understanding of that. That is the specific one, I would assume.

I just wonder: In terms of the administration, in addition to that $100

million that was allocated there, was that specifically going to go into projects, and

this is extra administration over and above? Is the Province solely responsible for the

administration fees? Before I jump there, I look down at is federal revenue toward that. I

guess that is the federal revenue, $77,200. So overall, it is roughly half that agreement.

So that is an equal contribution. I think I've answered my own question, I say to the

minister. That is an equal contribution.

MR. DICKS: I couldn't have done a better job, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SULLIVAN: Those are the types of question you like.

Basically, that is on a 50 per cent shared basis, the agreement, of

course. I'm going to let the minister answer this rather than answer it myself. Even

though the project is 80-20, the administration is equally shared. Could the minister

answer that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the case. As the hon. member notes, the $77,200 is funded by

the federal government, and we pick up $80,300. It's roughly a 50-50 share. The

administration is jointly funded, although it is an 80-20 agreement. That is not always

the case. There are some other agreements where I believe the expenses are shared for

administration based on the percentage or the apportionment that each party contributes,

but in this case it is a 50-50 sharing of expenditure; or I should say expenses.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would assume the Salaries and so on, related costs, are people who

are designated to administer that agreement, and that is their sole function.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Or is that a certain specific allocation or pro rata

amount on people who might be employed within the department, and it might be allocated?

It is one of two. Could the minister tell us which?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are three people who are contractual. That is the whole of their

salary. We have one person employed, an executive coordinator, at $60,614, a financial

officer at $33,506, and a secretary at $22,641, for a total of $116,761. Then of course

this year you add in the extra pay period, salary increase, and so on. So they are

contractual positions, and they are there solely for the purpose of this agreement, and

it's not an allocation out of some other -

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not (inaudible)?

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. DICKS: And we cost-share that expense.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank the minister for that.

I can see they have been very prudent under Government Reform

Initiatives there. They have had some outstanding success. They have no reform

initiatives, I might say, Mr. Chairman. There are no reform initiatives in this

government.

MR. DICKS: That speaks for our prudence.

MR. SULLIVAN: If they have, they haven't spent any money on it.

They were, I might add, going to spend $55,000 on reform initiatives, and I guess they

found a way to spend that somewhere else other than have reform.

MR. DICKS: Maybe I could speak to that, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: The reason there is no salary allocation here is that

Mr. Phonse Faour, who is Deputy Clerk of the Executive Council, is in fact doing this. So

this is, in fact, very active. In fact I attended a government managers' meeting that was

held here in St. John's last weekend, and people are very active in that.

What we have here, because we are using existing personnel, are votes

or expenses that cover the cost of transportation, for example, professional services and

other items. So these are just pure expenses of the Government Reform Initiatives to this

point.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the minister is saying because we have a former NDP member of

the federal Legislature, there is not much in terms of reform initiatives.

MR. DICKS: He and his colleague might differ.

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, I don't mean to put words in the minister's

mouth. It was not intended as any affront to the hon. individual who is performing the

role at all.

MR. DICKS: Dignity, ability and intellect, etcetera.

MR. SULLIVAN: Advisory Councils On Economic And Social Policy: Mr.

Chairman, that is an area where we certainly could use some guidance.

Mr. Chairman, on economic and social policy - we are totally lacking, I

might add, in appropriate social policy. I believe we are working on a social policy since

I got elected, about six years ago and I have not -

MR. DICKS: Policy or disease?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say to the minister, one applies to him and

one applies to me.

MR. DICKS: Mine is policy, no doubt.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under this particular heading, once again under

Transportation and Communications, there was a considerable reduction from the budgeted to

the revised in 1997/98. Of course, we are back up again because we did not spend it all.

We only spent about one-third of it, a little over one-third, probably 36 per cent

roughly. We are going to put in an extra $10,000 over what we budgeted last year, and we

are going to budget three times as much. So I would be interested in knowing how much

Transportation and Communications breakdowns are there because that is a good thing. When

you don't spend it all you get a reward the year after.

Talking about that, I should say to the minister, there is a mentality

in government there - and in his position, I think he should do something about it. When

you get back to March and you start looking at the money in your department and find out

you have a big chunk of money there, there is no incentive to save: Let's get this back

now, we have to get some money next year. Go out and purchase another stack of new

vehicles here in March. I am telling you, there are more vehicles brought in this Province

in March by this government than in any other month. Go back and check the record. There

are more vehicles purchased in March by this government than any other month because there

is money left in the Budget and they go out and they spend it.

I ask the minister: Is he interested in initiating some type of

incentive or reward for departments that are efficient in disbursing their funds? If you

don't use it, you won't lose it necessarily, that type of - and that mentality is out

there. I don't have to tell the minister about that. The minister knows full well that

that is out there.

While we are on this topic here, I will mention - the same rationale

now, because in Purchased Services last year we only spent one-quarter of what we

budgeted. So we will budget four times as much as we spent last year in that area. Is

there really a legitimacy to it or, minister, is it just an area for a little bit of fat

in there: In case we need a little bit of money later on, we will have a bit of money? Can

the minister tell us that? I am sure he will be truthful.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member raised three issues. First of all he says: Use it or

lose it. Obviously we on this side of the case are using it while hon. members opposite

are losing it.

The second issue he raises is at odds with the point he makes. He says:

What are we doing to control the phenomena in government where people at the end of the

year spend their money? Of course, the wisdom or lack of wisdom as it is, that if you

don't spend it you will not get it next year. So if the hon. member looks here at what we

have done in Transportation and Communications and in Purchased Services, last year in the

first category we budgeted $68,500 and they only spent $25,000. We gave them $10,000 more,

$78,500.

In Purchased Services they were budgeted $20,000 and they only spent

$5,000. We did not lose, and they still have their $20,000. In other words, Mr. Chairman,

we have to be careful not to create a system that is based on penalizing one group for

efficiency. What we have said to people is: Look, if you come in with a budgetary request

that makes sense we will grant it regardless of how much you spent last year. So I think

this is the way to do it.

With respect to the third item: How are we going to try to encourage

efficiency overall? This arises out of that question. This is what the reform is all

about. The hon. member might be interested in noting, what they are doing in Ontario is

they are actually giving cash bonuses to departments that perform best in terms of their

implementation of policy and also doing it efficiently.

So I agree with the hon. member, part of what reform is about - and

that is being discussed with our government managers and executives is to find new ways to

encourage efficiency and the proper handling of duties within the public service, and find

a way to reward people for exceptional and exemplary performance.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank the minister for those enlightening comments.

I suggest to him, why don't you penalize inefficiency and see what kind of a result that

will get. That might work.

MR. DICKS: First, one has to determine inefficiency.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not think the minister would have a great job

finding some inefficiencies in the workings of government.

MR. DICKS: If the hon. member would care to give me a list, I would

be happy to follow up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Protocol, an interesting one, major government

sponsored events. I guess a lot of this, or a good portion of the Protocol aspect, is with

the arrival of Her Majesty last year and the Premier's transportation costs in this event.

I would like to ask: Transportation and Communications here,

transportation by the Premier, does that come out of the Premier's budget rather than out

of Protocol - the Premier's travel around? We budgeted $132,200 under Transportation and

Communications, only spend $35,200, and we had a big major event last year - a big year.

This year probably will not be of the magnitude of our Cabot 500, and we are going to

budget an extra $38,000 to what we budgeted last year, five times as much as we actually

spent last year. That is one thing. I am sure the minister can give us a reason why it is

up to $170,000.

Salaries are down. Would that be because we had extra staff hired on

account of Protocol, the Queen's visit here? What is the rationale, if it is not that?

Once again, the Supply aspect was down last year but it is back up,

higher up this year again.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in the figures here in Protocol

overall. I think we moved - the Protocol here. Purchased Services, for example, was down

almost $100,000 over last year. Would the reason again be because the post-Cabot 500 year

is not going to be as demanding in terms of expenditure in the Purchased Services area?

Would there be some other reason for that? I am sure the minister has the gist of each of

these four - 01, 03, 04 and 06 there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just ran through them. The reason Salaries are down is that there

were three positions and we have eliminated one. There was a protocol officer that is not

there this year. That is now vacant. So it is a director and a clerk-steno. That is the

basic $100,000 allocation that includes the slight salary increase and so on like that.

What I will say about Transportation and Communications, again it is an

area where fortunately the department, the protocol office, spent a heck of a lot less.

Frankly, I was very pleased given the amount of transportation that was required last year

in the number of events. Frankly, I do not know why it is up to $170,000. These are done

by the department. Obviously there is more travel related expenses this year foreseen.

This does not include any of the Premier's expenses as far as I am aware.

The other one, the Purchased Services, as the hon. member says, yes,

the reason it is much lower is, of course, that last year was an exceptional year given

the fact that it was the 500th Anniversary. So out of this vote would come the official

luncheons, dinners, receptions, and a lot of members of the public and hon. members were

at banquets and so on like this. It also includes minor things such as photocopier

charges, printing costs, advertising, associated with all of these events.

So last year, being a rather exceptional year, the vote this year is

down. Frankly, I would expect that next year and the year after it will probably increase

due to the Soiree '99, the 50th Anniversary, and also the year 2000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would have figured there could be a big increase in Protocol. I

figured the money would be a lot better spent by the Premier doing protocol lessons, I

would think, rather than French lessons. Maybe we could have used a lot of that last year

in particular with regard to Her Majesty's visit. I am sure the minister gets my drift,

and maybe see that we get the appropriate Protocol allocations there for that training.

Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. I know there was a bill just...

I know intergovernmental affairs, we passed legislation last fall -

MR. DICKS: No minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. DICKS: No minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

- that it is not necessarily the position of a Premier any more, and it

came under that heading. Has there been a minister appointed for intergovernmental

affairs?

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Or is the Premier currently acting in that capacity?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so the Member for Conception Bay East &

Bell Island, the Deputy Associate Minister of Finance - not deputy - the Associate

Minister of Finance, is hoping to get intergovernmental affairs? I guess not, I say to

him, he will not have that post. That is too sensitive and too touchy an issue. We cannot

have him there in that department. I thought he was getting that position ready for the

Minister of Education. You know, he was going to be able to sit back after all the heat he

has taken on those issues over the last while.

Seriously though, there has not been, I think, unless I have missed it

- I followed it reasonably close - there has been no minister appointed. The Premier is

still carrying on in that capacity; would that be correct?

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: Salaries, again under Executive Support, the only

difference there would be basically the extra pay period which would account for that.

Purchased Services again - Professional Services, great areas to build

in your little cushions here and there in your budget. Professional Services, it is not a

highly significant number. But the one in Purchased Services, we only spent $10,000 on a

budget of $27,800, and are budgeting again for that amount. So if the minister, when he

rises in his place, could just tell us: Was there some anticipated area that was not

expended last year for some reason? Because other areas in the budget under this heading,

Executive Support, are pretty well consistent. Maybe just that point.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In answer to the first question, there is no additional Minister of

IGA, at least as far as I am aware.

Purchased Services, I should point out to the hon. member, includes in

each office rental charges; for example, rental of a photocopier, rental of a fax machine,

things like this. That shows up here as well. It also includes any official entertainment.

But when it is in an Executive Support area, that is money spent by those people in that

group; so other people would not have access to that as such.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a significant increase in Salaries in this particular area

under Social and Fiscal Policy. We budgeted last year, $168,700 and we expended $143,000.

There was $25,700, so that is roughly a position there, some form that was not utilized or

whatever.

Also, Professional Services, there was not anticipated. What might that

have entailed? What professional services were employed last year when there was none

budgeted? And, what happened in Purchased Services that there would be $17,000 when I

guess traditionally there has been very little in that particular area? I am just

wondering why the huge differences there in 01. Salaries, basically in Professional

Services and in Purchased Services?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The increase in salaries is due to an additional person being added

there, and the Professional Services were for translation services. We recently signed

another French Language Agreement with the federal government, and $12,000 was for

translation services. Frankly, the Purchased Services, I don't know what that was. I will

find out for you. It might relate to the social and fiscal policy, intergovernmental

analysis. I do not know if that had to do with the Strategic Social Plan or what, but I

will find out for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe another day we can get back to that one. The minister might be

able to check that out and see what specifically it is.

Under Resource and Economic Policy, 2.3.03, once again there is not a

huge difference salary-wise, but the revised last year was $219,000. I guess when you

account for the increase now in the extra pay period we are only looking at bringing it up

to about less that $230,000. That is probably only about $8,000 roughly. That still leaves

about $13,000 extra over and above unless - when you look at the previous year's budget,

if you are looking at specific salaries, from $226,000 up to $240,600 would have been

pushing it close to that extra pay period; so, was there probably an unfilled position for

part of the year, or some temporary only in that specific - The minister, when he rises,

can answer that one.

Once again, Transportation and Communications. There was considerably

less expended than anticipated there last year, and we are back up to the same number

again this year. Has $49,000, ball park, been the traditional expenditure there? If it

has, why was it an unusually low amount last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The $240,000 is not any additional position. I give the hon. member the

amounts: The extra pay period is $8,286; the base budget for Salaries is $215,433; there

is $5,900 for the 2 per cent increase this year; there is $1,757 in step progressions;

there is $200 in overtime, and that basically gets you up in the vicinity of the $240,000

or so. On top of that, why Transportation and Communications was down I don't know.

Frankly, we try to estimate at the beginning of the year in all the

different areas how much travelling will be involved. Some areas are down, some areas are

up, and during the run of a year you find some groups have to travel more than others.

Others, of course, do less than budgeted. Some go over budget. Overall they balance up

across government. This is one of those fortunate areas where the expenses for

Transportation and Communications were down.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat. Once again, Salaries would

be approximately the same. I guess the difference, when you look in most of these cases,

is your 4 per cent or roughly extra salary, and the step progression I guess for just that

portion of the year in which it was implemented, which would account for roughly I guess

$4,000, and maybe $1,000 or so in each area. The 2 per cent only went retroactive to what

particular date?

MR. DICKS: January 1.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right, it really went to April. It would

be the full year, 2 per cent. So we are looking at about, would it be correct, under

Salaries there, approximately $9,000, we will say, for that -

MR. DICKS: The extra pay period.

MR. SULLIVAN: For the pay period?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Then I guess roughly half of that then would be for

the increase of 2 per cent.

MR. DICKS: Sixty-two hundred dollars, in fact.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty-two hundred dollars?

MR. DICKS: Sixty-two hundred dollars.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sixty-two hundred dollars.

MR. DICKS: Because this will be for -

MR. SULLIVAN: Because some retroactivity from January is paid into

this year? I would assume, because -

MR. DICKS: That may yet be - excuse me, if I could answer the

question. For the coming year it will be $6,200. I believe the hon. member's question was

what it would be for the period from January till now? The hon. member is right, it would

be between $1,000 and $2,000; about $1,500, I guess. For the current year we are in now it

is $6,200. There is a bit of overtime at $1,200, which gives you the $253,000. This one

was almost precisely on budget, as the hon. member knows, in the salary detail.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would just say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Because if an extra pay period is about 4 per cent, and the 2 per cent

increase, the increase should account for roughly half of what the extra pay period is. In

this case it is a bit higher percentage, whatever the reason. I am sure, when you look at

all the salary ones, the extra pay period should be 4 per cent of the salary total

whereas

the 2 per cent obviously would be half that. If there are some differences there, maybe,

unless some people had varying amounts or step progressions, it would be built into that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Step progressions, no, are accounted for separately, $346. The salary

increase is $6,200. That is 2 per cent for the coming year. On reflection, it may also

include a retroactive amount back to January 1, depending on the group involved, because

that is not in the pay. So it may be an amount of money paid out the current year. We

haven't done this yet; we just have to see where all our collective agreements fall out,

because virtually all of Executive Council is non-union.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, in a few other areas too there are some

fluctuations. Maybe the minister can just explain those too. There is an expenditure of

almost 90 per cent extra under Transportation and Communications, over what was budgeted

last year, and then we are budgeting double this year over what we budgeted last year, or

a small increase, basically, over what we actually spent last year.

There are some fluctuations too in Supplies over what we spent. The

reduction in Professional Services is very dramatic when you look at it number-wise, only

one-quarter of that amount in those specific areas. So what might be the reason for .03,

.04 and .05?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Those were directly related to the added activity last year. As the

hon. member will remember, last fall in particular, we concluded an MOU with the LIA,

Memorandum of Agreement with the Labrador Innuit Association. I was there for the

conclusion of it and virtually all of the group were, at that time, in Ottawa negotiating

and concluding the agreement. So the activity was more intense; we stepped it up. There

were a lot of meetings in Labrador, here in St. John's and in Ottawa because there were

three parties and we rotated it around. The reason Transportation and Communications went

from $50,000 to $94,000 was as the result of the added meetings that had to be attended.

Professional Services was fairly small because we usually (inaudible)

consulting services, but we did not need them last year because most of that was in order

on this file.

The other one: I don't think there are many substantial variations

here. We did not spend anything on office furniture and equipment, for example. So I think

that probably explains the majority of the questions the hon. member had. Routine office

supplies: Well, we used a lot more paper, I think, last year, judging by what came across

my desk, which brings us up to over $6,000 there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess we spent some money to have that big announcement in November,

the announcement that we might have an agreement in principle, basically; the big furor in

the public, the big announcements, the people brought in. Everybody there except LIA, the

people we were supposed to have an agreement with. They were up in Labrador telling us: We

don't have an agreement in principle. So, all the money spent around that and the big

announcement there - an agreement in principle: Oh, we have an agreement in principle.

Just before they do their little polling out there to say that they have a settlement with

the aboriginal people and then to turn around: Oh it will be in a couple of months, it

will be March. Now here we are in May and we still don't have an agreement in principle,

not to say an agreement. That is only the initial step in the process. The Premier rushes

around trying to make much ado about nothing. I think he would be a great playwright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: These people even agree there. They even find it

amusing, what I am saying about the Premier. They all agree with me. The only one who

really had the gumption to come out and say it or really take a shot was the Member for

Humber East. He said he sandbagged us. He is the only one really who had the spunk to come

up and say something.

Under Aboriginal Affairs, 2.4.02: That seems to be fairly well on,

salary-wise. There has not been any great change there. There might be a slight amount

there, but nothing significant.

Transportation and Communications is a whopper, I might add, in this

one, Aboriginal Affairs. From a budget last year of $170,000 we spent $82,000 and now we

are going to budget three times as much again. So a lot of progress this year. I would say

there are going to be some news conferences this year. I would say we will probably get

three more news conferences out of the agreement in principle and then before we even get

to the main - we have not even gotten to the framework of an agreement.

I will certainly be eager to hear from the minister on why we are up to

$250,000 in Transportation and Communications? Who is included in that? What particular

people are included under that particular part of the Budget, outside of departmental

people? What aspect is covered?

Professional Services: There was almost a 50 per cent, about a 45 per

cent increase there from what we spent last year. There is almost a 100 per cent increase

in Purchased Services there. So I would be

and there is almost a 100 per cent increase in Purchased Services. I

will be listening very attentively to hear why these drastic aberrations are occurring

here in the Budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This all has to do with the Innu land claims, not the LIA. We are

trying to fast-track the Innu land claims. It has been agreed by both parties in order to

facilitate -

MR. SULLIVAN: Aboriginal Affairs, 2.4.02 is restricted to Innu?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Not the LIA?

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: The LIA was under - you mentioned Executive Support

for some of the ones included back there.

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is right. What I said was, most of what we

spent last year -

MR. SULLIVAN: Why would they be separate? It is Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. DICKS: What I can tell the hon. member is precisely what these

budgetary allocations are for this year. We have allocated $35,000 for extraordinary

negotiation sessions for the Innu lands claims. That is under travel. Also, under the Land

Use and Ratification Committees, there is a very complicated process when you get - as the

hon. member knows, we have Memoranda of Understanding and Agreements in Principles that

have to be voted on and ratified. So it is a very intense type of negotiation, very, very

slow-moving and for that reason costly as well.

There is another $85,000 in there for additional - well, one is for the

Land Use Committee, I believe it is $50,000, and the Ratification Committee is $85,000.

For the rent of facilities alone, to carry on these negotiations, we have budgeted at

$60,000 and that is under the Purchased Services. So, if you look at the last one, the

$86,000, we have added another $60,000 to it to put it up to the $159,700. We had budgeted

last year, $170,000 for Transportation and Communications and we have added in $85,000 to

increase that to $255,000.

These are very intense negotiations. The people involved are living in

hotels and meeting rooms, either here in St. John's, Labrador or Ottawa for a good part of

the year. As a consequence, they are costly for us to carry out, but at the same time they

are vital to the future development of the Province.

CHAIR (Mr. Penney): Order, please!

For the sake of clarification, I would like the record to show that

since the microphones are turned on for both the hon. the Opposition House Leader and the

minister, the Chair will not be interjecting by recognizing the speakers. But if I might

ask, that the hon. member inform me of the

section to which he is referring.

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

CHAIR: The last

section to which he asked the question, the last

subhead.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will do that now, yes.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, when I go to each section, I usually

read the heading and mention the number; 2.4.02, for instance, and I said Aboriginal

Affairs. What I have been doing with each heading, I have been saying that at the

beginning - and I am sure the minister has been following as I have been identifying - and

once I get down to 01.03, where already I am moving from heading to heading, so that way

it is in sequence. But I will make reference to 2.4.02, Aboriginal Affairs.

I ask the question to the minister, overall: Why would it be in a

separate area, Aboriginal Affairs expenses, and be separate from Innu and the LI