Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 27 March 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 7)
2001-03-27
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 27, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 7
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to advise
members of a successful Internet company that is operating in Trinity North. It
is promoting Newfoundland and Labrador merchandise in a global marketplace.
E-Commerce Solutions, a Shoal Harbour company owned by the partnership of
Theresa Pittman and Susan Hollett, has launched DiscoveryGiftShop.com. It is a
unique online gift shop -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This company is a unique gift shop that sells Newfoundland and Labrador
products, and they sell it online. It offers very diverse items such as handmade
quilts, prints from Newfoundland artists, books, cd's, jams and chocolates,
and they are all produced here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The potential for this site is enormous and is reaching many customers who
normally wouldn't be targeted.
I congratulate Theresa and Susan for their initiative and wish them all the
success that their business deserves. I think it is a great way for citizens
worldwide to buy Newfoundland products just by a click of a computer mouse.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a resident of my district who
is doing his part to conserve wildlife. Michael Fequet from Cartwright, a
full-time conservation officer for the past eight years, has been given the
distinction as outstanding Wildlife Officer of the Year for 1999 by the Shikar
Safari Club International, which is a wildlife conservation group.
Mr. Fequet was selected for this prestigious award because of his outstanding
performance in his duties and dedication to conservation. Many officers work
diligently for conservation but rarely get the recognition and encouragement
they deserve for preserving our valuable resources. I am pleased to congratulate
Mr. Fequet on this award and thank him for the valuable job he does in
protecting and managing our wildlife and forest resources.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is SKIP-A-LUNCH day. I invite my hon.
colleagues on both sides of the House, and all members of the general public to
support the School Lunch Association's SKIP-A-LUNCH campaign and donate the
money they usually spend on lunch to the School Lunch Association.
This is the fourth annual SKIP-A-LUNCH event held by the School Lunch
Association to raise awareness of the issue of child poverty and its effect on
children's education, and to raise funds in support of the Hot Lunch Program
operated by the association in city schools.
The event is endorsed by the Premier and Mrs. Grimes, the entire Liberal
Caucus, the Department of Education, and many prominent figures from the
political, business, arts, entertainment, and media communities. I know that
members opposite have also supported the SKIP-A-LUNCH program.
Government's support of school meal programs is evidenced by our investment
of $2 million to the School Children's Food Foundation since 1998. As well,
government gives an annual grant of $75,000 to the School Lunch Association.
The School Lunch Association was founded in 1989 by a small committee of
individuals who recognized the correlation between hunger and a child's
ability to learn. The association helps children take full advantage of their
educational opportunities by operating a non-stigmatizing program that provides
hot, nutritious lunches to children at school, regardless of their families'
ability to pay.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support SKIP-A-LUNCH.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I stand as well to -
AN HON. MEMBER: Skip-a-lunch.
MR. HEDDERSON: I stand to skip-a-lunch, maybe a couple. Although, I must
admit we are a bit leaner on this side of the House than on the other side.
I say to the minister, you can be assured that the members on this side of
the House certainly support a school lunch program for the children of
Newfoundland and Labrador; basically needed. The only hope is that these
programs that are established in any number of schools could be universal to
make sure that every student in this Province is given a decent lunch during the
school hours to make sure that the learning opportunities are there, that they
have a full stomach and therefore, perhaps, can get a full mind.
Again, we encourage all the members and certainly the general public -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: - to SKIP-A-LUNCH in support of this worthwhile cause.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We support the SKIP-A-LUNCH program and the school meal program in the
Province where one-third of the children in this Province, of school age, live
below the poverty line and only 10 per cent have access to a school lunch
program.
If I may quote from the Royal Commission on Education: "When children
are not adequately fed they miss valuable instructional time, fail to keep up
with work, and are very likely to drop out of school early. Whatever the cause
of the hunger, it will affect children's health and educational achievement in
the short term and their economic security -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. HARRIS: No leave to quote from the Royal Commission on Education?
That is how serious you guys are.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier.
AN HON. MEMBER: Really?
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, really, Minister of Mines and Energy. When I am
finished with him, I am going to get to you too.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Yesterday, I asked the Premier direct questions, direct
questions related to the possible re-amalgamation or redesign of FPUS, and the
Premier chose to sit on his hands. I was even further astonished today when I
read the paper and the description - quoted the Premier himself when he said,
" I thanked him" - meaning Mr. Risley - "for the information. I
wasn't interested enough, quite frankly, to ask him any questions."
How can the Premier explain his indifference when thousands of fishermen who
depend on this industry, thousands of plant workers who depend on this industry
all over the Province, are worried about the implications of this takeover,
worried about their jobs, worried about the survival of their community? The
former Minister of Fisheries knows the difference. He indicated that on his feet
yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Why weren't you, Premier, even interested enough to ask a
couple of basic questions to this group?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As was made known publicly yesterday, I was visited by Mr. Risley - myself
and the Minister of Fisheries. He came as a courtesy call and to give us a piece
of information about a commercial activity that is going to occur at a
shareholders' meeting, and I thanked him for the information.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: This is astonishing. Do you understand what your own job
description should be as Premier of the Province? There were plenty of questions
you could have asked him.
For example, Mr. Risley has said publicly today that he wants to get higher
profits out of FPI, higher dividends for shareholders. Did the Premier even
think to ask Mr. Risley what approach he will take to increase the dividends for
his shareholders? One basic question you should have asked.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure we unfortunately will not have a circumstance where the Leader of
the Opposition will ever be the Premier, because he is not interested in the
job; he has given up the job he had now, actually.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: If anybody on that side were ever to become the Premier,
they would decide, based upon a meeting at the time, whether or not they would
ask questions. I saw no reason at that point in time to ask any questions of Mr.
Risley. We are interested. We have talked with Mr. Young since. We are very
interested in the issue, and it is something that may or may not unfold in five
weeks' time, and we will be fully prepared as the government to deal with
anything and everything that might come to pass in five weeks' time, if the
first action comes to pass, which is the change in the board of directors of a
publicly-traded company.
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the situation and the seriousness
and the position that all members in this Legislature took eight months ago, for
their Premier to stand up and say, outside this House, that he was not even,
quite frankly, interested enough to ask a question is an astonishing statement
for the Premier to make.
We all know how companies like this increase shareholder dividends. They shut
down marginal plants; they cut the workforce. Plant workers in fishing
communities in this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland, are concerned
about it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier this question: Did it occur to you
to ask Mr. Risley if he plans to do any of those things in his pursuit of higher
profits?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There was no discussion with me and Mr. Risley about any profits or lack of
profits thereof. I was given some information that an individual is going to
take an action at a shareholders' meeting to try to have new people placed as
the board of directors. I am not interested, quite frankly, and I will say it
again today, in speculating about what may or may not happen. I do not assume
that the first action that he came to talk to us about, of changing the board of
directors, is necessarily going to be successful.
Mr. Speaker, none of the other questions, quite frankly, will ever come to
bear or have any meaning or relevance if the first action, which is a move to
change the board of directors, does not occur in five weeks' time.
We are having every single question asked, because Mr. Young brought it to
our attention and I spoke with him at great length and in great detail, because
he is the current Chairman and CEO. He knows the operations of Fishery Products
International. He is responsible for that company today. Mr. Risley has no
responsibility whatsoever for Fishery Products International today. The person
who is in charge, we have spent considerable time with and we are investigating
whether or not something might come to pass should one event occur, which is a
new board of directors getting put in place in five weeks' time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: I have felt no reason - none whatsoever - to ask Mr.
Risley about what he might do, what his intention might be, what his motivation
might be if he is ever to become successful in the first instance of having new
directors and a new board of directors put in place.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is interesting that the Premier talks about everyone
else's responsibility while at the same time abdicating his. We have a
statutory legal obligation for FPI because of the act of this Legislature.
Let me ask the Premier this. Another quick and easy route to higher profits
is to dominate the market so that you can set the price for fish. That is how
serious this issue is. The conglomerate of companies involved in this takeover
will be able to dictate prices if they are successful. Fishermen in this
Province are concerned about that. Did it occur to you that you should raise
this concern about the effect this conglomerate could have on the incomes of
fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have discussed all of those issues with Mr. Young, who is the current Chair
and CEO of Fishery Products International. There is nobody in Newfoundland and
Labrador, not a single soul, who can say today, with any degree of certainty,
that anyone other than Mr. Young will still be the Chair and CEO of that company
after May 1. If, in fact, the shareholders of that publicly-traded company
decide at a shareholders' meeting in a democratic society that they are going
to have a new CEO and a new Chair, then we will deal with that particular person
and put forward all of the concerns with respect to the legislation in
Newfoundland and Labrador and the future of the fishery and the role it has
played in it by one company - that one company being Fishery Products
International.
The Leader of the Opposition can protest all he like. The fact of the matter
is, there is absolutely no way under which anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador,
or anybody in Canada, or anybody in the free world, can suggest that in a
private business arrangement in a publicly-traded company on the stock exchange
that the shareholders cannot, if they want to, suggest different people be
nominated for the board of directors at a shareholders' meeting. That is
something that the government cannot be involved in. We already know that.
Everything else we can be involved in. We will wait and see if there is anything
to be alarmed about or concerned about. I am not willing to suggest that we
should all be up in arms and alarmed and concerned today about something that
might not even happen in five weeks' time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary..
MR. E. BYRNE: So, here is the new strategy. We are going to sit on our
political duffs, wait for the situation to occur, then deal with it when the
fish have already left and the horse is out of the barn. That is the strategy of
the Premier.
Did he hear CBC Radio Today when Mr. Risley was asked directly: Have
you asked for the 15 per cent restriction as
an act of this Legislature,
an act
which you have a statutory responsibility to protect and stand up to? When he
was asked directly, did you ask for that to be removed, he said: not yet, we are
not at that point, we don't want to deal with that right now.
Premier, are you concerned about the trust-me approach being put forward, and
will you stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, in
particular, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to stand up when there
is something to stand up to and stand up for.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question again of the Leader of the Opposition. Let
me, Mr. Speaker, ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition who does not
want to be the Premier, who does not want the job of being the Premier; but
somebody over there might someday. If somebody visited you and you were the
Premier and said at a shareholders' meeting, we might actually try to have a
new board of directors put in place through the proper procedures of the land,
what would you do about it? What would you suggest to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador that you could actually do, if you were the Premier?
If you give an honest answer, you will answer that there is absolutely
nothing you can do about that, absolutely zero that you can do about that. Not
in Newfoundland and Labrador with the Fishery Products International Act, not
anywhere in Canada, not anywhere in North America, not anywhere in the free
world would anybody in a position of Premier anywhere else be able to say to
somebody: you cannot come into my office and tell me that you are going to try
to have a new board of directors appointed at a shareholders' meeting because
there is nothing, Mr. Speaker - and to suggest that there is something that the
Premier could be doing about it right now is absolutely false. It can't be
done.
There is nothing to be alarmed about, Mr. Speaker. Everything that is being
checked out will be known to the government well in advance of something that
just might or might not happen in five weeks' time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would tell any potential developer that
wants to fly in the face of legislation here, beware. This Legislature - and if
I were the Premier, I would stand up and say: beware, that I will use whatever
is in my power, whatever legislative lever is at my disposal, to protect the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I would tell them, Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question: Do you, as Premier, remember
the sale of the Burgeo plant and the transfer of its quota to Nova Scotia? Do
you think that this is a possibility with what is happening right now with this
company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that a well-known and
successful Newfoundland businessman, Mr. Barry, who I understand in most of life
supports the party opposite and is very well involved with them, is the person
who did buy the Burgeo plant and who did, as a Newfoundlander and a
Newfoundland-based businessman, decide to take a particular resource and move it
out and have it processed in another plant in Nova Scotia. I do understand that,
Mr. Speaker, and I do understand that there are people sitting very close to the
Leader of the Opposition who are involved in business capacities, through other
family members, with Mr. Barry, who make those kinds of decisions.
That does not mean that anybody in the office of Premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador would automatically cast a whole web and view of suspicion over anyone
who would come forward and say: we cannot let normal business practice occur in
Newfoundland and Labrador because we automatically have to suspect that
everybody's interest is to do in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr.
Speaker. That is something that we will not tolerate, we will not allow to
happen; but the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand and say that he could do
anything about what Mr. Risley said to the government other than to thank Mr.
Risley for the information as I did and let him go about his business and see
whether or not it actually transpires.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if this Premier had the backbone to release
who financially supported his leadership, we would find out who Mr. Barry and
others really support. That is what I say to the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question: Do you recall, or have you
been informed of the commitments and promises that were made to the people of
the Northern Peninsula by Clearwater? Do you recall, or have you been informed
of how those commitments and promises, to this day, three years later, have not
been fulfilled? Wouldn't those instances, which are a matter of fact - not of
opinion, a matter of fact - cause you enough concern to ask just a couple of
basic questions to Mr. Risley?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The Canada Health and
Social Transfer provides funding to the Province for health, post-secondary
education, and social services. During the next fiscal year we will receive $336
million. That is a loss of $89 million from 1994-1995. When you look at the
cumulative net loss from 1994-1995 to the projections to 2005-2006 we will have
received almost $1 billion less in accumulative loss from the federal
government. That is a very significant figure, $1 billion.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect their federal government to live up
to its responsibilities under the Canada Health Act to safeguard a universal,
accessible, comprehensive and publicly administered system. I ask the minister:
Why are you allowing your federal counterparts to crucify our Province on
funding dedicated to health, education, and social services?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thought he was listening a lot more attentively to my Budget Speech than
obviously he was, because we actually pointed out the fact that we also are
quite concerned about less CHST coming into the Province and the need to have
the money that we have for programs, for social programs particularly. I can't
tell you, but I can get you the page. I spoke to it specifically in the Budget.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: You did listen, I am glad to hear it. That is excellent!
In fact, we are very concerned and we will continue to lobby to try to have
the restoration of the CHST so that we are able - anyone in this Province can
see that over the last four years we have increased our Health and Community
Services budget by 40 per cent, from $1 billion to $1.4 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Our commitment is there!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I asked her on her role (inaudible) the federal government. She doesn't
seem to understand the question.
Over the next five years our Province will receive the lowest increase in
Canada Health and Social Transfer on a percentage base of any province in
Canada. An increase of just over 20 per cent over the next five years. When you
look at it British Columbia, they are going to get a 35.5 per cent increase over
that period; Ontario a 43 per cent increase; Alberta 48 per cent increase, three
have provinces getting enormous increases.
I ask the minister: Is this Province going to be able to provide health care
services that are comparable to British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta when the
money for these provinces from the federal government is increasing at more than
twice the rate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows as well as
everybody else how the formula is established for CHST. We know that we are
getting the same percentage based on formula for population as all of the
others. Our population is a lot less, so therefore our amount would be less.
Relatively speaking, we are not being detrimentally affected in any other way
other than the fact that we believe we should get more money. With respect to
the formula, the formula treats all of the provinces in a like manner.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It wasn't the case before 1994-1995 when our current federal Industry
Minister sat in the Cabinet and changed that to a per capita basis.
Your predecessor, who is sitting right next to you, said just recently, in
this past year, it is an easy time to be Finance Minister. That is what he said.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: That is what he said! The new minister has an easy job,
that is what I gather.
Our Province is the most geographically disadvantaged in this country, in
terms of delivery of health care. Not only that, furthermore, we have an aging
population -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: - that are demanding a greater share of medical services. I
want to say to the minister, on top of that we are the only Province in this
country experiencing a declining population. I ask the minister: Why are you
allowing the federal government to get off the hook and get away with funding
CHST on a per capita basis and not on a need basis before the former Premier and
the current Industry Minister got his hands on it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are well aware of the challenges of delivering health services in this
Province, and we do not have the monopoly on an aging population. Canada has an
aging population and our Province is a part of Canada and we experience that
same aging population, but our commitment is clear. Any government that would
increase the funding from -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will say it again so my colleague opposite can hear. He is listening
attentively, the Member for Placentia, so I will say it again.
We have a provincial commitment to health and community services here in this
Province. We have raised our health budget from $1 billion to $1.4 billion. We
will continue to make our case at the table with the federal government, as will
a number of our other colleagues, particularly those receiving equalization and
CHST transfer, in the way that we need it to deliver our programs and services.
We are not letting anybody off the hook. We are very public. We read it in the
Budget Speech. We make it every chance we get and we will continue to do that
because we believe we deserve and need to provide the services to the people of
this Province that other provinces cannot expect, and that is why we made a 40
per cent budget commitment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, your statement yesterday indicates that you are willing to reopen
the debate on bulk water export. You said: I believe the public debate was
short-circuited a little bit the last time. Come on, Premier, are you seriously
saying that the announcement made by Brian Tobin, the announcement that was
supported by you as a member of his Cabinet, are you saying now that
announcement was wrong?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have not said that anything was wrong. I have said that under the right
circumstances we are willing to have a full public debate about exporting water
from Newfoundland and Labrador and getting royalties so that we can provide free
tuition for students in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, the public have spoken on this issue. Premier, you made comments
that you did not think there were serious NAFTA implications to bulk water
export. Premier, that was not the opinion of former Premier Brian Tobin. It was
not the opinion of you and the rest of Cabinet, and it is not the opinion of the
federal government. Do you seriously believe, Premier - are you going to tell us
today that you seriously believe there are no NAFTA implications to the bulk
export of water?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I have said is that we are willing to have a full public debate about
the export of water from Newfoundland and Labrador; a full public debate on all
of the issues so that we can hopefully get royalties from water to provide free
tuition for students in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, do you honestly believe that if you start sending tankers full of
water out of this Province that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to
get maximum benefit in terms of jobs, spinoffs and royalties from this resource?
Because, Premier, if you are, it is the first resource giveaway that we are
going to get maximum benefits on.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do know and I am quite confident that again, the hon. member in the
Opposition would be frightened to death to think that maybe we could actually
export water from Newfoundland and Labrador, get some royalty revenue and have
free tuition for students in Newfoundland and Labrador because it is the last
thing they would like to see and obviously they are opposed to it. They do not
even want to have a debate on the issue. They would hope that we would not even
talk about the issue publicly. We will have a full debate because our objective
will be to get royalty revenues from the export of water from Newfoundland and
Labrador and hopefully in such volume and in such numbers that we could provide
free tuition for the post-secondary students of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier and has to do with his visit by those
proposing to take over FPI. Given the Premier's intimate knowledge of what Mr.
Bill Barry did in Burgeo, in transferring quotas to Nova Scotia, did the Premier
not take advantage of the opportunity to tell this Nova Scotian and the others
who were visiting them, to send them a strong message about what this government's
position would be on issues such as removing quotas from the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Was the Premier's indifference, which he expressed to the media yesterday,
because the representatives and those associated with him, who came to visit
him, were not members of the party opposite or their associates but, in fact,
were associates of the Liberal Party and perhaps supporters of the Premier's
attempt to lead his own party?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of
Education. Minister, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, great pains were taken
to establish a primary curriculum for the new millennium, I suppose, to get away
from the more outdates skills-oriented teaching methods. The whole child became
the focus, the emphasis on a seamless curriculum on balance.
Minister, you have sort of unraveled that, of late, in coming out and talking
about increasing language arts time. Your reason for increasing language arts
time is that more time on task will provide higher achievement; but, to get more
time in language arts in primary schools, you are taking 25 per cent of time
from such subject areas as physical education, art and music. By your own
argument, Minister, won't less time on task in phys. ed., art and music, mean
lower achievement in phys. ed., art and music?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, just to correct the hon. member on the figure he
used there, we are not looking to increase anything by 25 per cent. The amount
of time spent on language arts in our school system today is 25 per cent. We are
looking to increase that by 15 per cent to bring the total amount of time spent
on language arts in our school system to 40 per cent. That is in keeping with
what is happening in the Atlantic Provinces, when you look at Nova Scotia where
they spend 40 per cent on language arts, and in P.E.I. where they spend 45 per
cent. We are in keeping with that formula and in that range because it is an
Atlantic Provinces' curriculum that our students are studying. We are talking
Grades K-3 here, so it is not where we are looking at junior high or high
school, or decreasing time from other subject areas.
In fact, if you look at what is happening in the school system today - and
most boards are doing this - there is an optional 10 per cent in the school day,
and most teachers now incorporate that optional 10 per cent on language arts.
So, if you look at it, we are really looking at a 35 per cent time frame being
spent today on language arts. What we are looking for is an additional 5 per
cent, and most teachers would know how to get that by focusing on language arts
when they are doing music, drama or art. All we are asking is that they focus a
little more attention on language arts to try and deal with the problem that we
have in our Province in terms of literacy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour
Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, you misinterpreted my question. I talked about a
decrease and a lower achievement level in phys. ed., art and music as a result
of you altering the curriculum, which you have done. You have altered the
curriculum.
My next question is: If you have altered the curriculum, isn't it true then
that the loss - and it is a loss - of 25 per cent of time allotment in phys.
ed., art and music - because that allotment is lost, whatever way you do it, it
is lost - it will result then in a comparable loss of teaching positions in
these specialty areas. Again, Minister, how do you explain that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, for a government that has just come out and
announced that we are not taking any teachers out of the system whatsoever,
despite declining student enrolment, despite fewer students in the system,
despite fewer schools, there is no intention on seeing fewer teachers in any
area of any subject in any school system. We are not taking 25 per cent away
from other subject areas. Let me repeat: there is a 10 per cent optional in the
school system now that will be applied to language arts. That is happening in
some parts of the Province now in some boards.
Having said that, I am sure there are those out there, including the hon.
member opposite, who would love to say that we are, in fact, taking time from
other subject areas. That is not the intent. What we are trying to do here is,
we are trying to ensure that our teachers focus on language arts.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.
MS FOOTE: At the end of the day, if our children cannot read, or our
children cannot write, or our children cannot add, then any amount of time on
phys. ed. or music or drama or art will have been lost, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour
Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, don't shoot the messenger! I am just carrying
along a message from the educators of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the minister, let's just take music as a
specialty. Memorial University School of Music is geared almost exclusively to
supplying music education teachers in our schools. I ask you, Minister, if you
are going to alter the curriculum, if you are cutting back on music, if you are
cutting back on the specialty teachers, what impact will this have on student
registration and indeed on the survival of the School of Music?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what a stretch! My heavens!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Here we are, talking about subjects in K-3. We are not talking
about elementary, junior high and high school. To suggest that what we are
looking at doing to try and increase the amount of time on language arts would
wipe out the School of Music at Memorial, give me a break, Mr. Speaker!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: That is ludicrous!
Let me say that if he wants to bring in a message from the education
community, I am getting messages every day from parents, teachers and principals
saying: Go for it, this is important. It is important that we focus on language
arts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise on a point of order. I ask the Speaker if he would ask the Premier to
withdraw statements he made here, accusations in this House, and implications
that were improper. No member of my family, immediate or otherwise, has any
shares in the Barry Group of Companies, no more than an employee of his office
and a person working for government is an employee of the Premier of this
Province and the government of the Province. He should not be making
implications. If he cannot prove it, and table it in this House, I ask him to
put up or shut up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I have offended the sensitivities of any member in this House - because I
named no one; I named nobody in this House - but if, in fact, I have offended
some sensitivities, which it looks like maybe I have, then I certainly apologize
and withdraw.
It is nice to know who it was that I wasn't talking about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply, the Legislature
and Executive Council.
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 (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to speak on the Estimates associated with Executive
Council and the budget notes. Certainly the total budget for Executive Council
is $27.1 million, comparable to last year's level of $27 million. I would note
that last year we added some one-time funding with respect to Human Resources
and Employment, and also for the Motor Vehicle Registration Driving System, with
respect to the computerization there. The funding is not included obviously, in
2001-2002, and other accounts are up almost a total of $900,000. This also
includes - when we talk about this - various components, including Government
House, the Premier's Office, Cabinet Secretariat, Intergovernmental Affairs,
Treasury Board, Comptroller General's Office, Women's Policy Office,
Strategic Social Plan, Communications, and the Opening Doors program.
In this budget for this particular
section of the Estimates, as members would
know, those who listened attentively to the Budget would know we added $140,000
for our seven women's centres bringing the total to $410,000. We also did
additional funding of $284,000 for the anti-violence strategy; which brings that
total up to a $500,000. We have also included $300,000 for a new classification
system, so we can continue to work and do the preliminary work that needs to be
done as we look forward to new classification.
As well, we are very proud to say that we have provided additional funding
for the Opening Doors program, and also for a strong commitment for information
technology to a number of departments. As you know, Treasury Board houses the
monetary component of the IT budget so that other departments are able to avail
of it. We also do the computer support and the administrative support as well
with respect to, specifically, the IT.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do any explanation or take any questions as
it relates to Executive Council.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, it is no wonder the former Minister of Finance said it is an easy time
to be a Finance Minister. The jet-setting age of finance travel. The Executive
Council had a great time. Just reading the newspapers alone on all the travel
that is going on in the Province; tremendous travel by the Premier's office.
I ask the minister, under Government House, 1.1.01.01., they budgeted last
year $427,300 for Salaries. What was the reason there was roughly a $37,000 less
expenditure? I know it was budgeted back in this year. Was there a position in
the meantime that was not filled for a period of time and is now? Is it the
intent to fill that position or has it just been carried there with the
intention of filling it sometime, or is it filled now?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fact, there was a vacant chauffeur position last year in the Budget.
MR. SULLIVAN: It has now been filled has it?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, that has been filled and that would account for the
change from last year back up to this year.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.
CHAIR: Before the Opposition House Leader continues his questioning, I am
instructed by the Clerk that perhaps we should call the first head.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it would be a good idea. Now we can do this over
again.
CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: You have to get your facts straight. I say to the Premier,
he has to get his facts straight. He can't be throwing out things that are not
accurate.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) questions about the facts?
MR. SULLIVAN: Questions on the facts; we usually don't get the facts.
We get diversions, we get half truths. I will not say that bad word but we do
get a lot of variations of the truth.
Last year under Purchased Services, under Government House, 1.1.01.06, there
was $24,600 budgeted and we spent $45,500. That is a 95 per cent increase there.
What accounted for those extraordinary expenditures there of $21,000, because we
are back again next year to the same amount we projected last year? Was there a
one-time acquisition that had to be carried out or a purchased service? Does
that relate to certain legal or other types of professional services that were
required there? What specific expenditure occurred here?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The answer to the question on Purchased Services is while the vacant position
of the chauffeur was obvious in the previous question, services were provided at
that time by the Canadian Core of Commissioners for the purposes of
chauffeuring, and that would account for a purchased service as opposed to an
employee position for that period of time.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, and that would account - in total the expenditure is
roughly the same. It was about $4,000 more in a year. That was just looked at
under another area. While you didn't have a chauffeur you just purchased the
service on a direct contractual basis as opposed to an employee basis?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Right.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.
I will just move on to the Premier's Office, Salaries, 2.1.01.01. We are
projecting the beginning of an extravagant period, even more extravagant than
the Premier's Office. The Premier, this year, wants to increase his staff.
Maybe he doesn't have as many hidden everywhere else. He wants to increase
staff, or salaries to those staff, by about $60,000. Does that mean there are
new people in the office? Does it mean that there is going to be increased
remuneration to the ones there, or that impressive a jump in salary we can
anticipate - which would be highly unlikely. Can the minister tell us what
extraordinary expense has occurred there?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, what we are really trying to do is strive
to get back to the Premier's Office budgeting for 1988-1989 when it was up to
$1.8 million. That is what we are really trying to do here.
MR. SULLIVAN: You are getting there in a hurry! You are getting there in
a hurry, I can tell you!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Chairman, we still have $800,000 to go to catch
up.
AN HON. MEMBER: You do?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.
We were up to $1.8 million in 1988-1989, and we are up one point less than $1
million this year; so there you go.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: I asked a pretty simple question: Why did we spend $780,000
last year and $841,000 when there is $61,000 more in Salaries in the Premier's
Office this year than last year? What is accounting for the $60,000? Is it an
increase in pay to the ones who are there or are there more employees in the
Premier's Office? Is it one of those two, and which one?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is an additional position in the office of Assistant Secretary of
Strategic Planning. Basically, that is it.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the last Premier. We can see, I guess, one
reason why; he probably might be planning on spending a little bit more time
here. He might need more staff. That could be one reason why.
AN HON. MEMBER: The travel budget will be down.
MR. SULLIVAN: Good deduction.
MR. J. BYRNE: With all the mistakes he's making he needs more staff to
straighten him out.
MR. SULLIVAN: I suppose so, interesting. The Member for Cape St. Francis
said he is getting into so much trouble, he is making so many more mistakes, he
needs more people to come after him and correct his mistakes and get the spin
out there.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Cape St. Francis is not wrong very often, I
can tell you. Not very often at all.
Transportation and Communications; here is a biggie, $145,000 budgeted and
$220,000 spent; $75,000. Over a 50 per cent increase in transportation in former
Premier Tobin's Office for last year. I mean that is an enormous increase in
Transportation and Communications. That is not counting, I suppose, anybody
accompanying him. Those transportation costs all farmed out somewhere else. The
Minister for Mines and Energy, I guess that amount went out there, and if a
person from some other department accompanied him, that cost went out to that
department. That is just the ones that are showing up here. Why is there more
than a 50 per cent increase in what we budgeted in this particular line item
last year as a result of expenditure? Next year the new Premier is not planning
on doing as much travel? He is back to what the other premier thought he was
going to do, not what they actually did. So why over a 50 per cent increase?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, there was an increase in Transportation and Communications and it
is there in black and white. Everybody can see it. It is associated with
increased travel requirements of the former Premier, and obviously attending to
the very important business of the Province. Also, there were a number of very
important trips around negotiations at the time and various other ministerial
and Premiers' responsibilities. As you can see, the number is there and the
number is slated to be back to $145,000 again this year.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask the minister, the former Premier was only here for
six-and-a-half months out of that twelve: How much of that $220,000 was incurred
by Premier Tobin? What is the breakdown incurred then by Premier Tulk and by
Premier Grimes out of that allotment? If it is difficult to give all three,
could you tell us up to October 14 or October 16 how much was incurred in the
six-and-a-half months out of that $220,000 by the first of these three Premiers?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: The number is not broken down. It is just broken down
for the position as opposed to the various individuals within the department. As
I said, there were two former Premiers. I think, clearly, the bulk of which
would have been for the former former Premier; but I don't have the actual
breakdown for each of the three Premiers in the budget year.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr .Chairman.
Would the minister be able to get that breakdown for me of how much was
incurred by the former Premier in his six-and-a-half months out of that
$220,000? It should not take a long check of the records to go back to these.
They are all dated and signed off appropriately there. I do not expect her to be
able to necessarily throw it out today, but if she could give me a commitment
that she will provide that for me?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, the minister is saying yes, agreeing to that. Thank
you.
The next item - boy, this is an expensive Premier when you look at things.
Maybe it is not such a good time to be a Finance Minister.
Supplies, 04., were $19,400 and now the revised amount is $30,000. That is a
significant amount. We are going back again to $19,400. I know with three
different Premiers in one year there might have been extra things needed in
terms of stationery and others types of things, but I am not sure if they would
have accounted for that much of an increase of $10,000 or $11,000. I would
assume a certain amount can be attributed to the change from three different
Premiers in that fiscal year and I guess the printing of things that were
already done there. If there is anything over that, could the minister just let
me know what the extraordinary expenditures are?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, it is basically an increase in supply and demand associated with the
Premier's change in office and there is nothing specific that I can identify
other than that.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The next item shows, under 06. Purchased Services, we budgeted last year
$26,500 and we are budgeting this year $26,500, but we spent last year $55,000.
That $28,500 is an increase of 100-and-some per cent, more than double, no
fiscal control whatsoever on many of these items here. Why the large over
expenditure, over 100 per cent more than we budgeted, in this item under the
Premier's Office?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The costs are reflective of hospitality and entertainment associated with
increased travel for the office of the Premier.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Under 07. Property, Furnishing and Equipment, there was
$5,000 and we spent $10,000. Normally there is a low amount allocated for this,
so when we look from $5,000 to $10,000.... In the total budget $5,000 does not
seem much, but it is a 100 per cent increase in what we budgeted. Why is there
also a 100 per cent increase in Property, Furnishings and Equipment in the last
fiscal year?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There was an extra $5,000 spent for property, furnishings and equipment in
the Premier's Office.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: So the new Premier did not like the colors in the office.
Did he change the art, what is on the walls? Did he change any structure? We had
a 100 per cent expenditure. Is there any particular item that constituted the
bulk of that expenditure?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to correct the
assumption that was made, and rightly so. If the member opposite thinks that we
changed the property and furnishing in the Premier's office, that was not the
case. The allocation is $5,000 and there was $5,000 over and above the
allocation, in terms of equipment and other pieces of required property that
went between the three Premiers for that particular period of time. I think that
would not be exorbitant, in light of the fact that there were three Premiers in
that period of time.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: I understand that. We did know that the second one was only
there for only a short period of time, that was a predetermined time almost, so
I cannot see any significant changes in the interim there. There is a 100 per
cent increase and I still do not know now what it was spent on. That was the
question. I do not want to insinuate any particular thing, but if there was an
expenditure that needed to be made there, and it was made, that is not the
point. The point is, what was expended there.
When we look down through this budget here, we see an increase of over 50 per
in Transportation and Communications. We see an increase of 60 per cent in
Supplies. We see an increase in Purchased Services of 100-and-some per cent. We
are seeing over 100 per cent increase in Property, Furnishings and Equipment in
the Premier's Office. I would just like to know what it was spent on, and were
they necessary expenses, basically, when they were not budgeted? If they were,
fine. If it was a necessary expense and it had to be done, and it is a
particular item that had to be replaced, or whatever the case, I am sure we are
quite understanding of that. That is a particular question that I would like to
have an answer to.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I already answered the question, Mr. Chair.
MR. SULLIVAN: We did not get an answer.
Harvey, do you want to go to the next one?
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Minister, I wish to switch to 2.2.01. Executive Support. We note there
have been some changes. Last year the budget provided for $699,500 for Salaries.
Actually, you spent $732,700 and now it is up to $814,500. We note that it is
gone from $699,500 to $814, 500 which is basically about a 15 per cent increase
in one year. Why would that happen?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Salary adjustments for the Clerk, salary adjustments for the Deputy Clerk and
Assistant Secretary to Cabinet, Strategic Planning.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Does that mean, Madam Minister, that the people whom you
have listed - and I have them in the Departmental Details there - that these
people on average received a 15 per cent increase last year, and that was a
salary adjustment? Are you suggesting that there were no new people added, and
that the salaries went from last year $699,500 to this year $814,500 and you did
not indicate any new positions. Therefore tell us, in percentage terms, the
percentage of salary increase we are talking about to the people you previously
identified.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, there is an additional position, as I pointed out. Salary adjustment for
the Clerk, salary adjustment for the Deputy Clerk, comprised with the new
position, is what accounts for that increase in the allocation on that line.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, at a time when all other people in the
civil service were looking at 2 per cent and 2 per cent and 2 per cent, are you
suggesting that the people in the Executive Council, some of the chief officers
of that department, that there was a different salary scale increase for these
people as compared to the rest of the civil service? Could you tell us what
percentage increases did occur in the salaries for the people we are addressing
here who work in the Executive Council?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I pointed out, there has been an increase in the salary for the Clerk and
Deputy Clerk of government, and also a new position, Secretary to Cabinet. I do
not have the exact percentage of breakdowns. You can see there is nothing hidden
in the numbers here. You can see the numbers, what they were last year, the
revised numbers, and what they are now. They are the three individuals we are
talking about here. We are not talking about any number of people; we are
talking about three individuals as it relates to the increase in the salaries
that would account for what you are seeing right there.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the Estimates that we are looking at here for Professional Services, last
year we budgeted $32,700. Actually there was $5,000 spent. It is back up to
$32,700. What professional services did you anticipate spending money on last
year but did not? Why do you need to put that money in the budget again this
year if you only spent $5,000 last year? Why would you increase that by six
times the amount that you spent last year?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are not spending six times more. What it actually amounts to is that last
year we did not spend the allocated budget. That was because we spent less on
consulting fees in that particular area than we had intended, but the budget is
restored to what it was the previous year even though we did not spend it. We do
not go out and spend every cent of money in the budget, even if we do not need
it. We try to do it responsibly. From time to time when you do not need to spend
it - as you can see, last year we only spent a portion of it, $5,000 as opposed
to $32,700. This year, based on discussion with executive and senior staff, they
believe we should leave the allocation for the budget at $32,700 and if we need
to spend it this year then the money is there, and if we do not then we will not
spend it.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, we are not questioning whether or not you
should have spent the money if you did not need to spend it. It was there last
year. My question is, if you did not need to spend it last year - we are talking
here about Professional Services and it is only a small amount of money we are
talking about in terms of the total budget. We congratulate the minister if she
is able to cut the expenditures they do not need to spend; however, if we are
looking at about $25,000 that we are putting in this year, my question is: If
you did not need it last year, why would you not let the budget for this year
stand at what was really spent last year, which was $5,000?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, Mr. Chair, because this is a new year. While we
did not need to spend it on consulting services last year, there is a
possibility we may need to spend it this year. So, based on the advice we got
from the people that help us in doing the budget, our senior executive and
managers, they recommended that we leave the allocation of $32,700 in for
possible consulting which may come up from a number of initiatives that are
occurring, whether it is from the Strategic Social Plan or any particular piece
like human resources or anything that may result. I cannot sort of crystal ball
what it may be, but the best advice we got from our officials was that we should
leave it in because, on the chance that we do not spend it again next year, it
will be there. It will still be there, it will go back into the general revenue,
but you need to budget it if you are getting the best advice that you may need
to use it throughout the year.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The same thing applies, Madam Minister, to 07. Property, Furnishings and
Equipment. Last year you budgeted $20,000 and you spent $10,000. It is back to
$20,000 this year. Surely the people in the Executive Council would have
identified what they would be spending $20,000 on. There is a very small staff.
What would they be needing to spend $20,000 on, when they only spent $10,000
last year?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, Mr. Chair, they may not need to spend it next
year; and, if they do not need to, as you can see from this year, they will not
spend it. They were budgeted $20,000 and they spent $10,000; now they are going
to be budgeted $20,000 again. There are new people there, new staff positions.
It is quite possible there may be some requirements there.
Mr. Chair, again I will say that if it is not needed to be spent, it will not
be spent. You can see that not all of the allocation was spent this year, even
when it was revised, and therefore the same will hold true. If we do not need to
spend it then we will not, but it remains as a budgeted line item.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I congratulate any government division when they can curtail their
expenditures, and note that perhaps there should be rewards in government for
departments that can come in under budget. Just because it is in the budget does
not mean that we have to spend the money. We should reward them or recognize
them, if they can run their department with fewer dollars than may have been
allocated to them.
Madam Minister, going on to the next budgetary item which is Economic and
Social Policy Analysis, I note that last year you spent $376,100 on Salaries.
This year it is up to $392,400. What would have caused that? Is that just
standard salary increases?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: And step increases, and the 2 per cent and part of the 1
per cent this year. It is the two combinations. Did you get that?
MR. H. HODDER: Yes, thank you, Madam Minister.
Could we go on down then? I think the rest of the items in that particular
division are relatively self-explanatory. I might just note as well, if you
could look at Transportation and Communications under Economic and Social Policy
Analysis, last year you spent $30,500 and you have put that up to $40,000 this
year. Is there an explanation, or is it that you expect more travel this year or
you have some new communications strategies that you are going to implement?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. SULLIVAN: Just a little bit of fat in the budget, isn't it?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, we are trimming fat off it. As you can see, it was previously
budgeted at $42,000 and now we are budgeting $40,000. Even though we only spent
$30,000, the line item remains. As I will say again, if we do not need to spend
it then we most certainly would not spend it.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Minister, going on to 2.2.03 Offshore Fund - Administration, the
administration of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund, we note
that last year there was a budget for $81,400. What would have caused that to go
$86,000 then to $93,200? If you look at last year's budget compared to this
year's budget, we are looking at going up by about $12,000 compared to $81,000
last year in the budget. That is a significant increase. Is that because of just
the step progressions and other regular pay adjustments?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is correct.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: If I could move on now to 05. Professional Services, under
the same category 2.2.03., last year we budgeted $37,300 for Professional
Services, spent $16,000, and this year it is back to $37,300 again. Why would we
keep that budget item for Professional Services at the number it was last year
when obviously last year they left a lot of money unspent? We congratulate them
for that, but why would you keep it at $37,300 if last year's history shows
they can do the job on $16,000?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This particular item was around the cost of auditing fees, and the auditing
fees were less than anticipated this year. That is not to say that we will not
be doing further audits this year, because we would. Based on that fact, the
best advice we had gotten from our officials was that we should maintain the
same line item cost in lieu of the fact that the auditing cost may go up, or any
other professional services. That is the one specifically that I refer to, but
there may be a need for other services which might drive that line item up to
$37,300.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.
The same thing would apply to the next item, which is Purchased Services
where last year there was $7,500 allocated for it. The expenditure was really
$2,000 but this year it still continues to be at $7,500. Does the minister have
an explanation as to why we put an extra $5,500 more than the actual expenditure
of last year?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Because, we generally try to budget on what we anticipate will be spent, not
what is actually spent. From time to time, as you can see from previous line
items, we spend a whole lot more and we still would return to a lower budget. So
again, I would say, based on the advice from our officials. You know, in this
particular case, the Offshore Fund - Administration, which is funded under the
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund, it was decided by the parties
that we would leave that item in because it is a cost-shared initiative, as you
know.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.
The next item, we will go to page 18, is 2.2.04. Economic Renewal Agreement -
Administration. The administration of that, of course, is really shared again
with the federal government. We note that in Salaries again, last year the
budget item was $123,700, the actual was $111,600. Given the fact that we spent
about $12,000 less, and of course we had the step progressions last year as
well, what happened there? Did we have somebody who left early and we didn't
spend the amount? Because it is unusual, when the allocation for salaries is up
on that kind of a small amount of money, that we wouldn't be spending that
amount. Did something happen? Did somebody leave early or somebody transfer to
another position? This year it is up to $132,900, which means that it is up
about $21,000 beyond what it was last year, the actual of last year.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There was a vacant secretarial position for part of the year and that would
account for the decrease in the salary line vote.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, would the amount from $123,700 of last
year to $132,900 this year be accounted for through the standard progressions
and step increases?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is correct.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.
We look down to Professional Services. Again, I compliment the divisions of
government when we can run our divisions and spend less than was allocated. I am
looking at the item under Professional Services. Again, there was $17,000
allocated for that particular unit last year, the actual was $4,000, but the
minister this year has put $17,000 back in there. When I look at the aggregate
here, then we have to look at where we need extra money. If we are going to be
lean in these allocations, to me, it would have made prudent sense not to keep
it at these amounts but to recognize that many divisions of government in other
units are crying out for more money. Why would we not adjust that amount to
reflect more of the expenditure to be in keeping with what was actually spent
last year rather than what was asked for last year?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I would say that in this particular line item there was less money
spent on the auditing services than we had anticipated. Again, this is a
Newfoundland-federal government cost-shared arrangement, and the budget was
planned with that in mind.
With respect to another comment, that many departments were looking for more
money, I would say every department would like to have more money this year, so
I certainly concur with that. Again I will say that if the money is not spent
(inaudible) it goes back into the general revenue, as you know, and then it
would be reallocated.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.
I just want to read into the record, and you can correct me if I am wrong,
going back to page 16, to the Executive Support, which is the salaries, of
course, for the Clerk of the Executive Council, my colleague has been checking
some data for us while we have been talking here and I note that this year the
salary allocation for the Clerk of the Executive Council is $125,537, up from
$113,376 of last year, and the Deputy Clerk is allocated this year as $108,047
from the salary estimates that we are looking at, from $90,985 of last year.
That means that these two positions together, we have gone from salaries of
$204,361 up to $233,584. Does that accurately reflect the salary increases for
these two positions under the salaries for the Executive Council?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Chair, it accurately reflects your calculation but I
have not done the calculations and I really am not in the position to concur. I
know the numbers are there, the increases are there. I know this was around
three individuals. You have identified two of the three individual salaries from
this year's to last year's. With respect to those two, you have the numbers
there. They are there in black and white. As I have said, I have been very clear
and open and honest that they are reflective of an increase adjustment to both
the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and the new position.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
MR. EFFORD: Do you roll pennies every night for the piggy bank?
MR. H. HODDER: I would not have time, I say to the Member for Port de
Grave, to roll his pennies, but I do have time to roll mine. You have lots of
free time now, John, you can roll your money every night. With all the free time
you have, you do not need us to help you roll your money, but I still would not
have time to roll your pennies for you.
I want to move to the item under 2.2.05. Advisory Councils on Economic and
Social Policy. I note that salaries last year -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Peter Fenwick, Joyce Hancock -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: Are you suggesting Peter Fenwick is now a Liberal?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Is now a what?
MR. H. HODDER: A Liberal.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, he asked me who was on the council, so I was just
listing off a few people who just came to the top of my head.
MR. EFFORD: If Peter Fenwick is on it, he should (inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Member for Port de Grave, he was in Cabinet
when he was appointed.
MR. EFFORD: I did not know.
MR. H. HODDER: You did not know? Now you do. You will have to go back and
ask for a rescinding, I would say to the Member for Port de Grave.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: He makes a very good contribution to the whole
committee.
MR. SULLIVAN: He should be consistent.
MR. H. HODDER: We do not doubt that the member makes a good contribution.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: He makes an excellent contribution.
MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to go to the salary allocations under item
2.02.05. Last year you allocated $134,500, actually spent $129,600, but this
year you are looking for $203,200. What has happened here under Salaries? Is
this extra personnel? It must obviously be extra personnel, because we have
virtually gone up over 50 per cent, approximately $73,000.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, in fact, there are new positions here. As you know, we are moving to the
next phase particularly with respect to the social policy on our social audit.
That can account for some of it in terms of our policy requirements. Yes, there
is a new position and other adjustments.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder if the minister could tell us how many new positions and where they
would be found within that unit? (Inaudible) looking for the independent advice
to government on major economic and social issues. I want to ask the minister
where the positions are, and how many there are?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is a new temporary policy position within the Social Policy component.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Is that the only new position?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes it is, that I have on there.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: We are looking at a $73,000 increase. That seems to be an
unusual amount of money for that one position, I say to the minister. Maybe she
would like to take the question under advisement and check back with us later
on.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: There is a built in increase in Salaries, as well as a
new temporary position in the Social Policy piece.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: The people who are actively negotiating with government,
as we speak, might be interested in some of this kind of information, I say to
the Member for Ferryland.
I want to go to the issue under the same category 03. Transportation and
Communications. Last year there was an allocation of $78,500 and actually spent
$28,000. This year it is still back at $78,500. Why did you not spend the money
last year? Obviously, you allocated too much money. Why would you then put it
back to $78,500 this year, if you indeed could get along last year with about 30
per cent or 40 per cent of that?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Last year there were fewer meetings. We have two major committee groups
represented under this heading and there were fewer meetings. I think this will
come closer to looking at the social items. Specifically, there are more planned
meetings around consultations and you know it is a widespread group. My
understanding is that they plan to do more meetings around consultation as they
come closer to identifying what the social audit is going to look like because
that is a huge piece of our Strategic Social Plan.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I am fairly reasonably familiar with the
social audit provisions and the processes that are necessary. However, when you
look at bringing this group to St. John's or wherever for meetings, we are
looking at spending nearly $80,000. That is an awful lot of meetings and an
awful lot of expense to the public purse. I just want to make that comment
because it means that the budget for that division will go up from $167,600 to
$313,200 this year. That is from what was actually spent last year to the
allocations that you are looking for this year.
Madam Minister, if we could move to the next item which is under 2.2.06.
Protocol office. I note that last year the budget was for $108,900 under
Salaries, but you spent $135,800. That is approximately $25,000 or $26,000 more
than the budget. Why did that happen?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: This includes salary costs for two permanent positions.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Minister, going to the next item, which is Transportation and
Communications, last year there was $250,000 budgeted, again they spent $90,000,
and the Protocol office this year is back up to $250,000. What special events
are we talking about? Are we expecting any Royal visitors? What is happening
that we would be budgeting $250,000 for the Protocol office under Transportation
and Communications in one year? Last year we did have some significant numbers
of visitors coming to Newfoundland because of the Viking Celebrations. What is
happening this year that we would need to spend more than twice as much as we
actually spent last year?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This year, as you know, we will be celebrating the Marconi celebrations with
Princess Elettra and her family but, more importantly, the focus is on
telecommunications. That is why you can see the Communications piece in there as
well, because the focus is on telecommunications with this particular
celebration piece.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Minister, you are anticipating that the focus this year - again, we
know that the actual cost of the celebrations we had last year was a lot higher
than the allocations for the Protocol office. Again, it seems to me that we do
seem to be spending significant sums of money in that one office for
Transportation and Communications, even though I recognize that when you are
talking about celebrating Marconi, it is a little different than what we were
doing last year in terms of Protocol. I think you did indicate that there is a
visit expected from some members of the Marconi family. I assume they are coming
from Italy?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: They are, yes.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.
I was wondering if the Member for Ferryland is now ready to proceed to the
Minister's Office?
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister's Office; oh yes, that is the area that we
want to get into.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Which minister's office are you talking about? Is this
IGA Minister's Office? Is that where you are now?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Did you finish Senior Management, Harvey?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, we will run down the list here and keep it in line -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Do you want me to finish off before you do IGA? Is that
what you want to do? The minister will be doing IGA for himself, I would assume?
Are you doing IGA yourself? You are.
Do you want to finish off my stuff or do you want to break off for a few
minutes?
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, okay. Did the minister say she wanted to have a general
comment before we move into IGA?
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader has been recognized.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I am just wondering. I did not hear the minister's
comment -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am sorry, what did you say?
MR. SULLIVAN: I was asking if government wanted to have comments under
IGA before we moved into that or are we just going (inaudible)?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am not doing IGA. The minister is doing it but if you
want to finish off the rest of what I am doing you can. It is up to you, however
you want to do it. It doesn't matter.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well IGA would be under our House Leader, so if there is
something else while you are here and you want to move to it, I don't have a
problem.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay, that's good.
MR. SULLIVAN: I am just seeing what is next now.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Communications and Consultation is next.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that is on page 21, Communications and Consultation,
2.4.01. Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, 2.3.01 we can get back to later
if that is fine?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is IGA.
MR. SULLIVAN: Communications and Consultation, 2.4.01. We will get back
to the Government House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
questions a little later.
Under Communications and Consultation; Salaries are fairly comparable. They
are, in fact, almost identical, which means there probably must be - is there
one particular salary less now to allow for increases and so on, or any
progressions there? It is almost the same, so there must be probably a salary
less, I assume, under 2.4.01.Communications and Consultation, subsection 01.
Salaries.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No salary less. It is almost identical, with the
exception of minor increases.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so there is very minimal allowance for increases.
There must be some change there.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, you can see the change.
MR. SULLIVAN: Under Transportation and Communications it is pretty
consistent. They budgeted $40,000, down to $36,000, back again to $40,000. I
guess that is within a 10 per cent drop there and it slightly increased, which
is within a reasonable margin.
Once again, Purchased Services, I know Purchased Services from year to year
can vary to a certain extent. They are subject to tremendous fluctuations in the
past. Historically, we have seen them fluctuate a lot. In this case there was
$40,000, down to $32,000, a 20 per cent drop, and then we have the increase
again. Under Purchased Services, was there an particular extraordinary thing
that was planned or any amount that did not materialize? You have just gone back
to historic levels, I would assume, in that. It just came in under, for no
apparent major reason, other than that it has been a historic level of
expenditure, probably. Would that be it?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Again, you only spend what you need to spend, and you
budget. Like any budget, sometimes you go over and sometimes you come under and
you try to stay under. In this particular case we budgeted $40,000, spent
$32,000 and, again, as an allocation from the officials who help us with the
budget, they identified that $40,000 was a reasonable amount. If they needed it,
they would spend it. If they did not, they would not.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is within a reasonable range. When it starts to
get over 50 per cent and 100 per cent, that is when I get concerned and have
particular questions.
Once again, under 2.4.02. Internet Operations and Graphic Support there is a
fair consistency throughout almost all of these. I have two questions under 05.
Professional Services. There was a budget amount of $80,000 and we spent
$25,000, so I would assume there were plans to have an expenditure here that did
not materialize in the last fiscal year. I am assuming that is going to be
carried and expended in this next fiscal year. That is what is looks like on the
surface. Would that be -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, that is accurate.
MR. SULLIVAN: Was there one major thing that comprised that? We only
spent $25,000, which means a lot of other minor things would have been covered
there, so that there must be one major expenditure there.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: What actually happened under that vote was that
upgrading and maintaining the Web page was actually a lot slower than
anticipated. That is why we spent only a portion of it, as you can see, about
$25,000, on upgrading and maintaining the Web page, compared to the allocation,
so we will keep moving forward with that.
MR. SULLIVAN: Which means, I guess, that plan should be carried out in
this fiscal year. It should be completed; it is not a long-term thing. I guess
upgrading is going to occur over the next short period of time. Otherwise we
will probably need another upgrade again.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is exactly right.
MR. SULLIVAN: Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there was $15,000
budgeted. It went down to $3,500 and back to $15,000 again. That is a historic
level, I think, $15,000, or in that ball park. Was there a specific identified
expenditure anticipated last year that did not materialize, or was that put in
because of historic levels and the expenditures just did not necessitate
expenditures, or whether it was areas that you might have a tendency to see
budget overruns and you try to at least refrain from purchasing again to keep
levels of expenditure down? Might that be the case?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, I do not think it is about budget overruns. Again,
it is just about - and I think it might be somewhat related to the Web page and
maybe some of the other equipment and property that would have been required
that was not required because things moved along more slowly. I would think that
if it continues up - I do think it is somehow linked - it may be spent. I would
say again, in caution, that we will only spend it if we need to. The departments
have been given a clear mandate that, if you do not need it, you do not spend
it. I think you will see that those allocations that maybe historically you
would see would be spent towards the end of the year, that does not happen, and
if it is not needed then it is not spent.
MR. SULLIVAN: The point I think I made when I said budget overruns, I
guess the intent of what I was saying was that sometimes when it gets near the
end of the fiscal year and the department expenditure is up to the limit,
sometimes you might have the tendency to make an expenditure or desire and you
will try to put that off, if you can, to keep within a certain limit. That is
the intent that I meant, but I think you have answered that anyway.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, the next one is under 2.5.01 Financial
Administration. Salaries there were pretty well on par with what was budgeted,
and it looks like next year there is a budget for one new position under
Salaries. Would that be correct?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, sorry.
MR. SULLIVAN: Would the minister be able to tell us what the particular
position there is going to entail, what the new identified position is?
MADAM CHAIR (Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The new position is for secretary to the former Premier. It is traditionally
a position that former Premiers hold for a period of two to three years - I
think three years - and that is where that position is housed, under Financial
Administration.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, secretary to the former Premier. Would that be
Premier Tobin or Premier Tulk?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Former, former.
MR. SULLIVAN: Former, former, okay. So, they are provided for a period of
- is it one year?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am pretty sure it is three years.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, for three years.
I know people who, when they have left and probably gone out of public life
and into private life, there was a certain allocation; but in the case of a
Premier who moves on to a federal ministerial position, where he has a staff and
so on of his own, and that is provided federally, would that be necessary then
for our Province to expend money when he could draw on our federal resources
there?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the intent is that the position is there for
cluing up of files. It has nothing to do with where you move on to; it is from
whence you have come. I think that is the whole idea of keeping it there, so
that if there are any issues, legal issues or anything that would require
winding up, that is the purpose of that. It does not matter where you move on
to; that it is one of the allocations that has been made historically.
MADAM CHAIR (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Ferryland .
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: Would the former Premier (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I would assume the immediate -
AN HON. MEMBER: No, I am talking about Premier Tulk (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the former.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) talking about the former, former Premier.
MR. SULLIVAN: I know, but this allocation here, she is indicating, is for
the former, former Premier.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but your question is a different question. I guess the
answer to that would probably be yes, too. I think it is just the most immediate
former Premier who would be entitled to similar, if necessary, and needed to do
that, and would be also.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right. He would be.
AN HON. MEMBER: For three years?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would imagine.
AN HON. MEMBER: Even though he was only there for three months?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Did Tom Rideout have it for three years?
MR. SULLIVAN: I think the point is, though, if he is in government for
another three years, use that as an example, I guess that would be necessitated
because the system would be here anyway to provide that service, but if he
decided to leave the employment of this government then and went outside -
because some of the work he would need, if there is a follow-up on the office on
files, it could be legal matters, it could be matters in court, it could be any
matters, and the person would not be expected to pay for his own resources to be
able to defend positions. When he is in the Premiership, then, there should be
public resources. I guess that is the intent, and that is not uncommon to other
jurisdictions, I know, in areas there.
AN HON. MEMBER: He certainly would not be entitled to a free moose
licence (inaudible), would he?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Premier is Premier, whether it is for a month or ten
years.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: What vote is that under, moose licence?
MR. SULLIVAN: That is under wildlife.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh, under wildlife. Okay, just checking.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, is that
where it is now?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Is that under Forest Resources and Agrifoods? Wildlife
licences, are they?
AN HON. MEMBER: No, Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. SULLIVAN: Moose licences are now under Tourism, Culture and
Recreation.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, they are under wildlife.
MR. SULLIVAN: It is not related to this but it is just for my own
information. They keep moving it around so much, it is kind of difficult to find
out where it lands with all those different shuffles.
That question, I think, we dealt with salaries. Transportation and
Communications is pretty well in line. There is one here also, 06. Purchases
Services. I know it is probably a similar answer, but Purchased Services was
$26,000 less than anticipated. Again, was there at the time budgeted for a
specific-like anticipated purchased service that did not occur now, or was that
just in that particular year? Because we are back again to budgeting what we had
before which implies, when you look at previous years, there were certain
historic levels you normally spent and you want the budget to be on the safe
side. Was that the case or was there some anticipated thing that we did not
spend last year and we are carrying it and going to have the expenditure this
year, under Purchased Services?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Part of this allocation was due to repairs and maintenance that cost less
than was originally expected. I understand there is some more to be required, in
addition to some of the normal vote that would be put in there.
MR. SULLIVAN: Like repairs and maintenance of -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would have to get the specific repairs and
maintenance. I do not have it specifically. I know that they were for-
MR. SULLIVAN: Like on capital, basically office space and things like
that?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it was capital.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to move along to 2.6.01. Strategic Social Plan, this year we are seeing
appropriations that provide for the implementation of the Province's Strategic
Social Plan, which I guess is what this heading covers here. There was just a
slight twenty-some-thousand, actually, on almost 700 less expended than
anticipated salary wise.
Next year we are looking at a reasonably significant increase there in
Salaries over last year's expenditure in the vicinity of $160,900. In that,
can the minister tell us how many positions and what generally those positions
are intended for, or what duties are entailed there?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Just give me a second on that, would you? Do you want me
to list out all the positions? Is that what you are asking me?
MR. SULLIVAN: No the $160,000 extra.. I would assume there is a retention
of the previous positions, basically. Would that be accurate, first of all?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: You would assume that. Yes, that is correct.
MR. SULLIVAN: There are some new positions too. I was just wondering how
many positions, or what new positions are there, with the hundred and sixty-some
expenditure.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: The information that I have would say that we have
increased some temporary assistants. We have increased some temporary assistant
positions, again focused around the social audit piece. We are doing some inside
and we have also done some from outside, under Professional Services. We got
some contractual work there through the university, among others, for the
Professional Services, and under Salaries we have some temporary positions
assigned there focused around that specifically.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wondering, there is $160,000 extra in salaries. Well, let's say with
increases and so on, allowances, we are still talking about 120,000 or 130,000
in salaries. So, there must be a few new positions there whether temporary or
other. They are temporary but on a full-time work basis, I would assume, is it?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is accurate.
MR. SULLIVAN: Would there be probably another three positions or so extra
over last year?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would have to get you the exact number. I know that
also included in that is step increases, salary adjustments and overtime as
well, in there.
MR. SULLIVAN: In order to meet deadlines, I guess, necessitated overtime
in this?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: All the reasons for overtime.
MR. SULLIVAN: You mentioned there under Professional Services, which I
will just get to now, there was a large expenditure last year for Professional
Services. You alluded to it. I think you made reference to Memorial University
and other areas of expertise you called on, on a professional basis. Now this
year under Professional Services it is down considerably. A lot of the
groundwork, the formulation, is all done and basically it is getting more to the
execution of the plan. Would that be -
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: As you know, we have done a fair bit of work on the
social audit. We have availed of some of the expertise in the local community.
That is why you can see that a lot of our planning in a previous vote around
Transportation is slated to increase, because I understand that the work is
coming closer to conclusion, as you have pointed out, and I think they will be
wanting to do more travel and consultation on that piece of it. But, yes, that
particular amount is back to where it was, because we believe we have utilized
the expertise of the people we needed and we will be able to move the process
further along.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: I see the minister has one big fan over there. When he
heard the word transportation, I say, that really set him off. It really got him
going. He can't wait to get to his estimates, I would say, on transportation.
As the minister said, basically, when you do look at the two areas,
Professional Services and Transportation and Communications, from one year to
the next they are fairly consistent, combined. One is based more on Professional
Services and the next more on Transportation and Communications, more at, I
guess, getting to an end of a process.
Although the Strategic Social Plan, that has been going on a long time. That
has been going on since I -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is good stuff.
MR. SULLIVAN: It is good stuff. Oh, no doubt. There are a lot of positive
things, I say to the minister, on that -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh my god! I can't believe it! Say it again, Loyola.
MR. SULLIVAN: - on the Strategic Social Plan. It is not all bad.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: My gosh! Does everybody hear that?
MR. SULLIVAN: I remember when I came in here in 1992 that was the buzz
thing, the Strategic Social Plan, and it is like it has been going on - well, it
is about ten years now we are dealing with it.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, 1996, this one.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, initially Clyde Wells established the Strategic
Social Plan back around 1992, I would say. In fact, I think at the time -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I was on the other side of the fence then.
MR. SULLIVAN: I think the gentleman who is retiring now - yes, she was on
a different side of the fence then. She was up attacking government for how bad
they were then.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Never! Never!
MR. SULLIVAN: Anyway, I think Mr. Jenkins who was paid tribute to here in
the House, I think at the time, went to work on the Strategic Social Plan, after
1993, if I remember correctly. Bob Jenkins was assigned in that area. I am sure
the Minister of Environment can recall that.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: He worked on the 1996 one I know.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it could have been 1996 then, but it started around
1992 under the Clyde Wells government, after I got elected. He had a Strategic
Plan. He also had the Recovery Commission; and nothing recovered. We are still
trying to recover some of the dollars they wasted and paid out. So, it was a
recovery commission of a different sort.
There was a Strategic Social Plan. When it had its embryotic beginning, I am
not sure of the exact date, but it is in that ball park. It has been going on
for close to a decade now at least. Many members who were there prior - I think
the minister came here in 1996. I do believe I am accurate there. Prior to that,
I think, people who were here would know that.
AN HON. MEMBER: Phase 1, Loyola.
MR. SULLIVAN: Phase 1.
AN HON. MEMBER: Three phases, thirty years.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is like our water system trying to get in. It is in
a dozen phases.
The next item there under Strategic Social Plan, Grants and Subsidies: what
are the sources of Grants and Subsidies? What is the makeup of these? I know the
expenditure is down there. To whom are the Grants and Subsidies, and what is the
specific issue? I would assume it is out to social groups in the Province and so
on. Would that be accurate?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Actually, these are the grants that are put out for community groups and
other social groups to do pilot projects for the most part. The maximum is
$25,000 per project. We have done a number of them right across the Island with
respect to community capacity building, volunteer component and also the
partnership piece. It is the three components of the Strategic Social Plan. They
submit a proposal, there is a selection committee, and the maximum amount is
$25,000. We are going into the fourth year of doing these now.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
So, basically the maximum amount, as you said, for any one group is $25,000?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, and some of those in partnerships. There are, I
guess, other sources. It would depend on amounts and their contribution.-
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh, they lever from the federal government with that; a
lot of them do.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.
Now, Information Technology: there was a significant amount spent over and
above there. There is about $48,000 almost, $47,700 spent more on the $78,500
budget. That is almost 70 per cent; about 68 per cent or 69 per cent increase in
expenditure under Information Technology. Could the minister tell us where those
extra unanticipated expenditures - what are the source of these?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
This was around information technology as it relates to the social audit and
statistics being gathered and imputed so that we can use it in terms of the
measurement and the base line associated with the social audit.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Under 2.7.01. Women's Policy Office: last year we can see a slight decrease
in expenditure - over anticipated there of about $32,000. Has that been an
anticipated position not filled there? Also, this year we are anticipating an
increase of about $96,000 in this area. I guess first of all, what is the cause
for the decrease last year? This year it seems like there are extra positions
there in this upcoming year. If the minister could confirm that?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you know, in this particular area we have had some fairly extensive
consultations with the women's community. One of the things they wanted - they
wanted many things, of course, and there is never quite enough money to do
everything - was an additional policy position with respect to the Women's
Policy Office. So that covers off a new position for policy.
Do you want to do the rest of the line separately? But that what it is, it is
an extra policy position.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
MR. MATTHEWS: You are doing a good job, minister, you are getting the
House cleared, at least over on that side.
MR. SULLIVAN: I did not hear what the former Minister of Finance said
there.
MR. MATTHEWS: I said the minister is doing a good job. She has the House
cleared, at least on that side.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, no doubt about it. On both sides, I might add. She
has been pretty effective with her own too.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, you have to subtract the ones that are not here.
MR. SULLIVAN: There are almost as many empty over there as we got over
here! Almost as many, just two short.
Is it still an easy time to be a Finance Minister?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Absolutely.
MR. MATTHEWS: I would go on record as affirming that at what point I say
that, I stand by it. When did I say it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: You can take it from me, you said it.
MR. MATTHEWS: I was having a good day that day.
MR. SULLIVAN: Not only privately, but in the public forum, you said it.
MR. MATTHEWS: What a time to be a Finance Minister.
MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure you do not visualize me standing and attributing
a statement to you that you did not make. That would never happen.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, I wouldn't (inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: Are you going to be around next week?
MR. MATTHEWS: I would think so. I am around for the long haul, brother. I
am not retiring until you retires, Harvey.
MR. SULLIVAN: Transportation and Communications and so on, there are
increases there. It probably reflects extra staff to a certain extent, does it?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Extra staff and also where we funded the extra positions
too. There is a fair bit associated with making sure they are up and running and
providing those services. We have a couple of newer ones as well which they
provide support services to.
MR. SULLIVAN: The next one now, 05. Professional Services: last year we
budgeted $34,100, we spent $47,600. That is an increase of $13,000 over $34,100.
That is a significant increase of about 35 per cent. This year we are going to
$128,100. That is an increase of about three to four times what we budgeted last
year. Actually, an increase of almost three times what we spent last year. Why
would there be an increase? What type of professional services, or whom might
you be going for this type of service?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This specifically speaks to the funding for the anti-violation strategy. That
is what this is for in terms of the added increase with this line, as well as
for the Purchased Services increase particularly. Also, if you look under the
Grants and Subsidies piece, at the extra $140,000, that is the extra money for
the centres. Plus, again, there is an incorporated piece for the anti-violence
strategy in all of those pieces.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that answers that.
Under Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women; that is strictly a
Grants and Subsidies basis anyway.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is.
MR. SULLIVAN: They go out and run their own offices based on their
contribution. The contribution next year is pretty well - we will say the same
as in the past. That is just a inflationary increase. Are these changes within
the amount given or is that pretty well just -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: The amount for the vote is the same, but if you were to
add both the Women's Policy and the Status of Women, you can see that there
has been a fairly significant increase. That is attributed to the points I have
previously raised in the other vote.
MR. SULLIVAN: In terms of the Council on the Status of Women, it is
pretty well status quo in terms of structure and budgetary requirements in that
aspect of the total Women's Policy.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, in terms of their grants. Their grants are the
same.
MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to allow the critic for Treasury Board to - I
think the intent was to proceed along the line to do Treasury Board Secretariat,
President of Treasury Board next. My colleague from Waterford Valley.
MADAM CHAIR : The hon. the Member for Waterford-Kenmount.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
And it is Waterford Valley. We did have Waterford-Kenmount from 1993 until
1996, but we changed it. I should point out that many people in my constituency
still refer to it as Waterford-Kenmount. It has taken a little while for the
name change to sink in.
Madam Minister, we are moving now to 3.1.01. President of Treasury Board.
This is appropriations for the operation of the office of the President of
Treasury Board. Last year you budgeted $245,500, this year the office is going
to run at $247,400. I did note that there were some minor increases last year in
Supplies, for example. It is a very small number. Last year you did allocate
$3,400, and you went to $9,000. What happened last year? Did you have more paper
supplies? It is just a very small amount of money but it is three times,
basically, what you had asked for in the budget. You are back again this year to
the original amount which is $3,400. Is there a simple explanation for that?
MADAM CHAIR : The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The reality is I would have asked for more if I was sitting there, in this
particular department, because I think it is fairly low if you were to compare
the amounts in the others departments. I think, traditionally, prior to this
year when the departments were together, this is a small piece aligned to
Treasury Board and now that they are separate again, I think it speaks to a low
amount, really, for this particular piece. I know that, with respect to
Supplies, $3,400 is not a lot when you consider the Treasury Board piece of it.
So I think it is reflective really, in terms of when it was a part of a bigger
department. Since it was separated out it never truly reflected the supplies
requirements. It is back down again now - but I think in light of the fact that
the two departments are combined it might be fine - but I think that is just
reflective of the day-to-day operations, and that it wasn't enough to be
budgeted once it became separated.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
In Executive Support; last year in Professional Services we had budgeted
$180,000, we spent $10,000. This year though we are up to $180,000 again. I just
wanted to ask the minister what Professional Services are we expected to
purchase this year that would cause us to spend $170,000 more than we spent last
year?
MADAM CHAIR : The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: The answer to this question really is based on the fact
that under Treasury Board there was, initially, an intent to look at doing more
public-private partnering, but that did not happen last year for any number of
reasons. I think the allocation is still there because that option remains; but
also because, if you consider the fact that Treasury Board is responsible for
all payroll, the administration and the running of government itself. The
officials felt it was appropriate to have an allocation to do two things really.
One was to continue on to see if the initiative on P-3 was possible but also to
give some leeway for things like human resource development, planning around the
professional services piece, so that is why that allocation is there. I will say
again to my colleague, if it is not required, it will not be spent.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Maybe the minister might want to reflect on the fact that
in the Budget Speech she mentioned a commitment to greater accountability. Does
the minister intend this year to introduce or to continue along the lines of
some recommendation that have been made and noted in the Auditor General's
report about commitments to make a greater accountability structure? I think the
minister is familiar with the processes that are currently in place and ones
that the Auditor General has noted in her report. Would any of this particular
allocation be used to continue to support the initiatives that would make the
whole accountability issue, shall we say, a greater function of the department?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think whenever you spend money with respect to professional services for
staff, human resources, you certainly would add and enhance the accountability
framework. There is a component to building on the accountability framework and
that certainly would require money, so we will continue along the path that was
set by my predecessor and we will look at maybe even strengthening that at some
point.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
In 03. Transportation and Communications, last year you budgeted $15,100. You
spent more than twice that, a 100 per cent increase in that allocation. I am
just wondering what would have caused you to have spent that much of an
increase? There is more than a 100 per cent increase than what you asked for
last year under item 03.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, that just speaks to increased travel inside the Province, as we talked
about the accountability piece, and also outside the Province for meetings
around treasury and that sort of thing.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Going to 3.1.03. Budgeting and Systems, which is the appropriations for the
preparation and monitoring of the provincial Budget and the coordination of
information technology matters for the government, I notice that we have under
Information Technology, the budgeted amount here is $7,403,800, which is only
slightly up from last year; however, can the minister now tell us that the
information technology programs that have been gradually introduced over some
years, that now we are reaching a point where all of the departments in
government are now up to, I guess, the most recent standards; because over the
years we have had to put extra money into information technology and
computerization and all of these programs. Has that program of making sure that
all of the departments in government have appropriately now been brought online,
is that program now finished? It never will be finished, but are all departments
up to date?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, this particular piece, line item 12. from vote 3.1.03., really speaks to
the operation of government as it relates to the payroll, accounting systems,
computer support. It is all of those pieces. It is not necessarily the new and
innovative pieces that go with it. As you know, Treasury Board houses that
budget for all of the departments of government and allocates it out based on
need. In addition to this, you would know that, for example, when you come to do
the vote on Human Resources and Employment, you will know that we have allocated
more for a new pay system. You would see that part of the IT under that
department specifically, so this is over and above. This is basically around the
accounting, the finance, the management system as it relates to the government,
and we house it for each of the departments.
Are we up to scratch? I think everyone would agree that the minute you
install a piece of equipment it is probably outdated. Yes, this would also
include the regular updates for the various Window programs that come out. It is
a software as well as a hardware, and basically around financial and accounting
and management of those systems.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: One of the issues that was raised a couple of years ago
was the ability of one division of government to be able to dialogue effectively
with another division of government. For example, you can get the Motor Vehicle
Registration, that needs to dialogue with Works, Services, and Transportation or
dialogue with Government Services, everything from fines, administration to
moose licenses or whatever. Are these interactions now all possible and are they
being effectively implemented by government so that one department can now
dialogue effectively with another department, keeping in mind the right of
privacy to information and all the standard features that should accompany any
good computer program?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think you can say that fairly safely from within government. I think that
outside of government as it relates to some of our communities, particularly we
are not as well-structured as we like to be. Our challenge is always to find
money to go from technology, or from services to put to technology. That has
always been the challenge.
I cannot say that we are on the top shelf with respect to all of our
community services, particularly outside of the government buildings, but within
buildings. As you know, we have just completed the motor vehicle registration
and the international registry for industrial vehicles, so we have done a fair
bit of work in upgrading the system, and I think within the government system
itself we are there.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Can the Minister advise, in response to a problem we had
just a couple of years ago, within the Department of Human Resources and
Employment, particularly as it relates to in some cases child welfare, these
issues. One of the issues that was significant when I was part of the study on
children's interests was the fact that different offices throughout the
Province could not effectively communicate with each other except by telephone,
and often these services had their own complications. Is it now possible for all
of the different offices involving children throughout the Province to
effectively communicate with each other so that we can have up-to-date
information, and also when it comes to the need for social workers in the
Province to have knowledge of everything from income support to, shall we say,
status for certain individuals? Is this information now possible in all of our
regional offices? It is very difficult to get it at the individual community
level. Are all of the individual offices online?
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our regional offices are, without doubt, but in some individual places, as
you know, particularly in Labrador, sometimes we do have some difficulties
there. For the most part, all of our regional offices, yes, are online. You
talked about having access to this. Depending on your professional status in the
organization, your access code varies, as you would know. So, it depends. If you
are a social worker you could access, for example, the financial administration
piece through HRE, but you probably would not be able to do the reverse; if you
were doing the financial piece, you would not be able to access the social work
piece. The code of access is in place as well.
MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, I recognize that information has to be
protected and it has to be on a need-to-know basis. Certainly we would agree,
and anybody would agree, that the standard policies have to be in place. If you
do not need to know information then you should never have access to it. That is
standard for all divisions of government, not just those that are with the
income support or with children's issues.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right.
MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, I noted that a couple of years ago there
was some difficultly mentioned in the Auditor General's report on having a
comprehensive policy regarding computerization in the government and basically -
if my memory is correct - she was talking about there not being a coherent plan
in place for monitoring computerization and programs. There was not a secure
plan in place where certain programs would be licenced. She mentioned, for
example, some of the software being used was not appropriately purchased. There
was not a secure program in place whereby those who were authorized to use the
software programs - indeed, we are still the people using them in some cases. I
note that this was in last year's report