The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to acknowledge and congratulate two residents of Labrador West, Gerard Louvelle and Wally Clarke, who received a medal of bravery from the Governor General of Canada at a ceremony in Ottawa on December 8.

On November 21, 1998, a tragic event took place in Labrador West when Gerard and Geraldine Murray and their five-year-old daughter, Nora, went through the ice on their skidoo. Sadly, Gerard and Geraldine were not able to be rescued but Nora was.

Gerard and Wally were real-life heroes that day. With help from others, through their actions, while placing their own lives at risk by being in the freezing water, they saved the life of Nora who was in the water for a lengthy period of time.

I am sure this House joins me in congratulating Gerard and Wally on receiving the medal of bravery for their courage and unselfish actions that saved the life of a little girl.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to provide my hon. colleagues with an overview of our fishing industry's performance to date this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on a member's statement?

MR. REID: No, I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

MR. REID: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that might be an endorsement of a leadership race, or a bid?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide my hon. colleagues with an overview of our fishing industry's performance to date this year. I am pleased to report that the production value from our fishery in 2000 shows another record-breaking year for the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry.

As our fishery draws to a close this year, preliminary data to the end of September 2000 demonstrates continued growth in overall landings, landed value and production value. I am very pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that the value of Newfoundland and Labrador seafood production will exceed $1 billion for the second consecutive year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: This year, the fishing industry employed 22,000 people directly and an additional 6,000 in support services, a total of 28,000 individuals. The fishery is, by far, the largest single industry employer in the Province. Employment in the fishing industry, as in many other primary resource industries, has a seasonal element. Average monthly employment in fish harvesting increased by 6 per cent or 9,200 people, up from 8,700 in 1999. An average of 6,600 individuals were employed monthly in fish processing. This number is down slightly from last year but remains above 1998 levels and resulted primarily from the reduction in the 2000 snow crab quota from 61,500 tonnes in 1999 to 51,500 tonnes in 2000.

Despite a reduction in crab and cod quotas in 2000, we have experienced another record year in landed value. Data for the first nine months of this year indicates landings of 225,000 metric tonnes and a landed value of approximately $500 million, compared with landings of 210,000 metric tonnes and a landed value of $420 million in the same period in 1999. Snow crab represents 51 per cent of the total landed value for the nine-month period, with a total landed value of $255 million.

Groundfish and shellfish landings increased 27 per cent and 6 per cent respectively over the nine-month period for this year. Turbot landings increased to 13,000 tonnes in 2000, up from 6,000 tonnes in 1999.

Inshore shrimp landings to the end of September 2000 showed an increase of 46 per cent above the same period last year and the inshore quota of 49,000 tonnes has been fully harvested. This year also saw the opening of an inshore shrimp fishery in the area 3L, of which the 2,500 tonne inshore quota was caught by mid-summer. The inshore shrimp harvesting and processing sectors have now clearly demonstrated that they have the capacity to harvest the quotas available.

Mr. Speaker, government is obviously very concerned over the slow recovery of key groundfish stocks and will continue to press for increased scientific capacity to better understand the reasons underlying their slow recovery. Over the next several months the federal government will be consulting with the Province and the industry on management plans for various stocks for 2001. Once these plans have been finalized, we will obviously be in a better position to comment on the outlook for the fishery in 2001 and for the foreseeable future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand why the minister is confused, and not knowing if he is a member or if he is a minister; but I say to the member that $1 billion is export value for the amount of fish that is landed here in this Province. It is a far cry from when you look at the increase in export value and you look at the number of people who are employed in this particular industry today. There are many people in this industry still today who have to support their families on make-work projects because they are unable to get enough work in the processing plants from the amount of product landed and the way that processing takes place.

When you look at crab leaving this Province today - not even cooked. There are crab products that leave this Province, not with the meat taken from the shell and packaged ready for supermarkets shelves, but crab products leave this Province today not even cooked, in a raw state, exactly as it is harvested from the ocean; cleaned up, put in packages and exported.

I can tell you that all is not well within the fishing industry. Just a few short months ago we seen the member's federal cousins up in Ottawa giving away 1,500 metric tonnes of shrimp and there was only one person from the opposite benches who I heard speak out and say how wrong it was. The shame of it, there were1,500 metric tonnes of shrimp given to Prince Edward Island and not one job was created.

I say to the member opposite, in reading the statement, that I have a shrimp plant in my district where people work a maximum of sixteen to twenty weeks a year. While you might say that the fishing industry is doing very well, there is still a great need to improve this industry. A lot of people in this particular industry depend on employment insurance; and when you see the changes that were brought about when the former Premier of this Province sat at the table in Ottawa to bring about changes that were detrimental to people in this fishing industry, that again, Mr. Speaker, is a black mark and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The rosy-sounding numbers riddled off by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of $1 billion, cast a shadow over the fact that there are many problems in our industry that are not resolved by using big numbers like that. Disguised by these numbers is the significant decrease in the number of people who are in fact employed in the fishery. The disturbing results recently announced in the 3PS cod stocks, and the fact that this government has failed to protect Newfoundland's interest when it came to the allocation of shrimp quotas this past year.

We have not heard from this government what their plans are to ensure that there is maximum utilization of our fishery resource, maximum allocation to this Province, and utilization by our fishing communities to make sure that we get the full benefits of this resource which we brought into this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report on National Health Expenditure Trends, covering a period of time from 1975 to this year, 2000. This report has significant findings that I would like to draw to the attention of my hon. colleagues here in the Legislature.

Findings show that health spending is on the rise in Canada with the total health expenditure, in current dollars, at $84 billion in 1998. Health spending is forecast to have reached $89 billion in 1999 and $95.1 billion in this year, 2000 - this represents annual increases of 6 per cent and 6.9 per cent. These results indicate a sustained recovery in health care spending by both governments and agencies in this country.

While the report's national findings are significant, I am particularly interested in the results as they pertain to this Province. Last year, the 1999 report indicated that health spending is on the rise in Newfoundland and Labrador. This year's report supports last year's findings and, indeed, shows that Newfoundland and Labrador ranks very favourably among all the provinces in health spending. This trend has continued.

The 2000 results forecast that among the provinces Newfoundland and Labrador has the second highest provincial government sector health expenditures with a per capita spending of $2,268.04 per person. Indeed, in 1998, which is the last year that the results are based on complete data, Newfoundland and Labrador is estimated to have had the highest provincial government health care spending per capita, $2,007.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Newfoundland and Labrador is also forecasted to have the second highest per capita spending among the ten provinces in the area of public sector health expenditures. The 2000 forecast indicates that our Province spends over $2,402.64 per person in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another finding of the report, which my colleagues may find interesting, is that the 2000 forecast indicates that among all of the provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest average per capita private health care spending in the country at $567.92 forecasted in this year. Indeed, Newfoundland and Labrador's private health funding and spending is significantly lower than the Canadian average of $895 for the year 2000.

While we have much to be proud of in terms of the level of health spending in the Province, government also recognizes the need for accountability in both performance and spending of these health dollars. There needs to be further defining of gaps in service and continued reform to meet the needs of the population of today. This includes increased funding for community health services, in particular, with emphasis on prevention and early and appropriate intervention.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, this government has stated its commitment to a publicly funded health system in this Province. The results of the report support and show the level of this government's commitment to a publicly funded system and indeed, to overall health spending.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information is a national, independent and not-for-profit organization created in 1994 by Canada's health ministers; and its mandate is to develop and maintain a comprehensive, nationwide health information system from which these figures were released today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are lies, they say, damn lies in their statistics; as the saying goes. I might point out to the minister some particular points. On a per capita basis; the minister points out. We have lost over 40,000 people in this Province in a far less period than that, which means if we never spent $1 more, the out-migration of people would have resulted in an increase of 7 per cent to 8 per cent in spending per capita, if we never spent one extra penny. That is why there is not another province in this country losing population. Every other single one in this country, including the Atlantic provinces, increased their population. Not only that, they increased their rate of growth. Two of the other three Atlantic provinces increased their rate of growth to their population. That is what is happening.

On a geography basis, we are the most difficult Province to administer health care on a per capita basis. That is why it is per capita. We have a geography that chews up immense dollars because of the demographics of our Province that are not common in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or any others.

The minister conveniently used the statistics here to say that we spent less on private health care than anywhere else. The minister has moved from a percentage basis now, he did not talk about a percentage increase in private use in our Province and that 30 per cent of the money spent in this country is coming out of the pockets of private insurance plans. That is what he does; he camouflages what he wants to use per capita and then he uses percentages and statistics where he thinks it would serve a purpose, but we are not fooled by it. If we do not spend another dollar and we keep losing population, we would be by far the first in the country. Nobody would be close to us. You have to address the problem of a shrinking population in the same geography, and it is very easy to get to the conclusion and to rank us up there. Just like the report here today is going to do nothing to ease the minds of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

- of the 540,000 Newfoundlanders today who have been denied health care services here in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to taking into consideration what the Opposition House Leader has said regarding population, it is also the fact that this minister and the previous minister well know that health care costs in this Province per capita are higher in any event because of the population demographics and the diseases that are prevalent. That is why this minister and the previous minister have fought for a different formula for transfers to health care for this Province. To use these statistics is only to underline the fact that our health care needs being greater and more money is required to service them. It does not talk about the serious lack there is in public support for home care, preventive health care measures, early intervention, and also care for newborns, prenatal care and nutrition, which is very important to our population.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Today I rise to inform members that earlier today I signed an Memorandum of Understanding for the Working Committee on Fire Services with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire Fighters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would like to acknowledge today members of the association who are in the gallery, including President, Mr. Rod Clarke; Mr. Hubert Sparkes, the Executive Director; Mr. Richard Murphy, Fire Chief of Conception Bay South and Director of Zone 1 of the Association. I would also like to acknowledge our provincial Fire Commissioner, Mr. Fred Hollett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this MOU is aimed at improving the effectiveness of fire prevention, fire and rescue services and other related services throughout our Province.

Together with these partners, I was also happy today to launch a new ‘Learn Not To Burn program.' This is a very valuable initiative under the MOU aimed at fire safety awareness. I have also committed $50,000 to allow the hiring of a provincial coordinator for the program. The Association will now look to the private sector for a partner to share in the cost of this initiative and I am told there are already a number of potential partners which have expressed an interest.

I am very pleased that this proven program will be brought to children in their classrooms throughout our Province. The ‘Learn Not To Burn' program was developed by the National Fire Protection Association, and has been designed to encourage at-home and community participation to strengthen the knowledge obtained in the classroom. It is aimed primarily at elementary school students but offers information about fire safety for people of all ages. Many schools throughout the Province already have the necessary materials and others will receive them throughout the implementation of the program.

The ‘Learn Not To Burn' program follows other initiatives designed to raise fire safety awareness. Earlier this year a series of informational pamphlets were distributed through fire departments all over our Province. They demonstrated many different ways to be fire safety conscious and were directed at people of all ages. Several years ago, another successful awareness program called ‘Now You're Cookin', addressed the problem of fat fires. I know that firefighters are strong advocates of the ‘Learn Not To Burn' program because it is created for children, who make up a large percentage of the fire deaths and injuries' statistics in Canada. In this Province, child deaths due to fires have decreased from seven in 1992 to a total of seven for the years from 1993 to 1999. While fire safety awareness is working, our obvious goal is to eliminate all child deaths due to fire by raising fire safety awareness.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire Fighters, as well as the Fire Commissioner's Office for their continued efforts to bring public attention to this very important initiative. I thank my colleague, the Minister of Education, for allowing this program to be offered to children in their schools.

I also encourage parents and teachers to support the program at home and in the classroom. We can all benefit from the ‘Learn Not To Burn' program. By working together, we can protect property, and the most precious of gifts, life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to first thank the minister for suppling us with a copy of her statement before the House sat today. I would also like to recognize and welcome to the House representatives of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire Fighters, and also the Fire Commissioner.

I would like for the minister to pay attention now because I am going to do something I do not do that often. I would like to congratulate the minister on launching a very positive and worthwhile program today; and for also committing $50,000 to hire a provincial coordinator, a very positive step.

MR. MANNING: A Kodak moment.

MR. J. BYRNE: A Kodak moment, Mr. Speaker.

Children in the Province are learning about fire prevention and, of course, in their homes, because of the fire prevention program, and that is also a very positive thing.

One sentence I would like to reiterate, is: "In this Province, child deaths due to fires have decreased from seven in 1992 to a total of seven from 1993 to 1999." Mr. Speaker, I think that is what these programs are all about, and again, a good thing.

One other thing I will say before I sit down: It is too bad that the minister didn't follow the advice of the fire commissioner's office, and leave the fire commissioner's office in St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the minister for a copy of her statement in advance. We, too, support any initiative that is taken because all too often we hear and read about the tragic loss of human life due to fire. I agree with the previous speakers and the minister, that this message is getting through and the safety programs are working. However, it is a continuous process that has to be mounted each time to make everybody aware, and keep people aware of the dangers around the home, particularly dealing with things that cause fires.

I would also like to point out, if I may, to the members of the Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire Fighters, who are in the gallery today, that in my private member's statement, when I talked about the rescue of the little girl in Labrador two years ago, the person who did that rescue was also a member of the volunteer firefighters in Labrador City.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. By now we are all aware that there is a damaged tanker, carrying 1.9 billion barrels of oil, on its way to Come by Chance Refinery in Placentia Bay.

In 1990, the Brander-Smith Report had, as one of its major findings, "the risk of spills is highest in Eastern Canada, particularly in Newfoundland. Placentia Bay is considered by many to be the most likely place in Canada for a major oil spill." Another major finding of that report, Mr. Speaker, is: "The estimated lifespan of a tanker is twenty years." The ship we are talking about, The Eastern Power, is twenty-four years old and is carrying over 500,000 more barrels of oil than The Exon Valdees did in Alaska. Placentia & St. Mary's bays are very high risk areas with rich fishing grounds, along with the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve.

I want to ask the minister today: What lead is his government taking in ensuring the safety to Placentia Bay? Is he satisfied that the cleanup equipment for a major oil spill is located in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, and will take seventy-two hours to arrive in Newfoundland?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the hon. member that the federal government, particularly Transport Canada, Environment Canada and the Coast Guard, is a lead-in with respect to offshore oil spills in this Province. I also want to say to him that the refinery and the transshipment facility have approved oil spill response mechanisms in place. Also, all tankers operating in Placentia Bay have accredited oil spill response organizations in place as well.

I would also say to the member opposite that in 1997, on the Terra Nova Project Review Panel, one of the recommendations - in fact, it was recommendation sixty-one - recommended that we establish a coastal zone management plan for the Avalon Peninsula and for Placentia Bay. I want to say to him today that as of June 2000, we assigned a senior person - in fact, it was a former deputy minister of Environment, Leslie Grattan - to bring that particular plan to fruition because it is very important that we do so.

I would hope that over the winter we will be able to talk to the people in the Placentia Bay area, the communities there, to finalize this particular plan so that we can be even more prepared for the tanker traffic that comes into Placentia Bay. There is no doubt about it, that it has been identified as a very high-risk area because of the activities that are there with the refinery and the transshipment port, and probably also for other things to come. It is very important that we have this coastal management zone plan in place, and we should do that over the next couple of months to make sure, as I said, that things are even more protected in Placentia Bay than they are now.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is our backyard. It is federal legislation in a lot of cases, but there have been a lot of reports and a lot of studies and a lot of plans. The bottom line is that the cleanup equipment in this Province can handle approximately a 10,000 ton oil spill. The average tanker entering Placentia Bay carries 70,000 tons. The Eastern Power is carrying 1.9 million barrels of oil. We are not even prepared in this Province for an average tanker. It would take seventy-two hours or longer, as I said earlier, to move the equipment to Newfoundland.

I want to ask the minister: In light of the fact that the ship will not arrive at the mouth of Placentia Bay until Thursday morning, has the minister requested that all equipment that would be required for an oil spill be relocated from other provinces to Placentia Bay, somewhere such as Argentia, as a precautionary measure?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, Transport Canada and Environment Canada have taken the lead in this. They have, at their disposal, mobile equipment that they can bring into the area.

I would also like to say at this particular time that Environment Canada and the Coast Guard were very diligent in what they did, to have the tanker come into the mouth of Placentia Bay during the daylight hours and to be escorted in by the Coast Guard. I am sure all of the materials that we have in place for Whiffin Head and the oil refinery can be put on alert, along with our partners, Environment Canada and Transport Canada, to ensure safety for this particular area.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the provincial government has done nothing. The owners of the Come By Chance refinery, VITOL Ltd., have an agreement with government that all oil being delivered to Come By Chance will arrive in ships that have a segregated ballast. A segregated ballast means that in the lower hull area of the ship there will be water to keep her stable and the oil will be stored in tanks above. This ship does not have a segregated ballast.

The Eastern Power has oil in her ballast, not water, hence the immensity of a threat. By rights, the Eastern Power should not be permitted to deliver oil to Come By Chance in the first place. I want to ask the minister: Has he addressed this issue? Who is taking care of the concerns of the people of this Province? And, is this agreement worth the paper on which it is written?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said to the hon. member, all precautions are being taken to ensure the safety of this particular tanker which will discharge its oil at Come By Chance. We want to work with all the agencies, including the federal government, the Coast Guard, Environment Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to ensure that this particular ship does arrive safety and unload.

What I can say also is that, in 1993, the Government of Canada indicated that all ships built since that particular time have to be double hull, at least, and triple coming into Placentia Bay. There are some older ones, no doubt, that are not doubled and tripled. In that case we have to take extra precautionary measures, and that is what is being done by the Government of Canada, at this particular time, who have the lead for this particular ship.

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

MR. MANNING: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I say to the minister.

Federal legislation does not call for double-hull vessels until 2015. In the North Sea, they have pushed for and received legislation that in high-risk environmentally sensitive areas such we are dealing with in Placentia Bay, that all vessels carrying oil into these areas be double-hulled within a couple of years. I ask the minister: Why do we not have similar legislation in Canada? Why do we have to wait until a disaster happens? What has our provincial government done to ensure that needed legislation is put in place to protect Newfoundland's interest first?

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

MR. LANGDON: One of the most important things, as I indicated, that we have done from a provincial point of view is that we have appointed former deputy minister, Dr. Leslie Grattan, to bring forward the coastal zone management plan, as we have indicated, and we are working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in that particular case. They are committed to an integrated coastal plan as well, and they have already identified Placentia Bay to be a good pilot project to begin with, and we are very optimistic that this can be done. We want to make sure that the people who live in the area - and our resources and so on - when we have this particular plan in place, that the people in the area know what is there.

It could very well be, when this plan is in place, that there will be recommendations that will be even more rigid than we have now, but we will have to wait for the plan to be finally submitted and passed by government. In the meantime, we will take every precaution to make sure that we protect our environment.

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

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

My questions are also for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Minister, the most prevalent reason for recovery rates falling below the targets in the beverage recycling program is that the recovery paid on beverage containers is three cents, and that is far too low. The current level of refund per container does not justify the effort of returning containers to Green Depots. The three cent refund level in the Newfoundland system is the lowest in Canada.

Minister, I just quoted from the Grant Thornton Report which was delivered to you earlier this year, the third such report in as many years. I am asking you today, based on the reasons cited in this report, in addition to other reasons such as recycling depots being located too far from people, the number of products being limited, the lack of provisions for recycling in public places, how many reports do you need before you start to do something to improve this failing system?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the hon. member opposite that one of the major problems that we have in this particular Province is waste management, solid waste management. To begin with, we have 250 landfill sites where whatever wants can go into these particular sites, where they are not guarded.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: I will get there.

What we want to do, and this is the first instance of it, is to do it from a regional point of view. For example, we want to start first of all with Conception Bay North. They have a problem there with the incinerator. We want to bring all of the communities together so that we can have one regional site. If we have one regional site for these communities, what we want to be able to do is to have recycling at curb-stop for these people, to be able to do more recycling in the communities that are around the Province.

As far as the report of Grant Thornton is concerned, about the deposit refund, there is no doubt in my mind either that three cents is not enough. We are looking at that, as we speak, from a government point of view, to make some changes. When the legislation was put in place at the beginning, it was done on a ten and five basis; but it was six and three that was finally settled on. That was before my time. I agree that we have to make some major overall changes, and we will do that very shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, I have been told that you are looking at ten and five, which is only going to increase the amount of surplus in the fund. That is not the answer. We do not recommend paying the cost of recycling new materials from the beverage container surplus. These funds should be used for bringing the beverage container recovery rates up to the levels acceptable.

Another quote from the report, Minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary and he ought not to be quoting.

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

Minister, you continue to rob millions of dollars from the surplus for reasons other than beverage container recycling. Can you tell me why you went against the recommendations of this report which you had in your hands prior to taking another $4 million this year?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, there are surpluses in the system because of the percentages of refunds not reaching the goals which were intended. That is not any different than what it is in New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, the 2.5 cents comes right off the top and goes into the Department of Environment to be used for government projects. What we do here is, the money goes back into the communities and, in this case, into waste management.

In Nova Scotia, too, they have money from the waste that goes back into the particular plant.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: New Brunswick's recycling rates are over 70 per cent.

According to the report, since this program started, recycling rates have dropped on a continuous basis. In 1998 they were over 50 per cent. For most of 1999 they were below 50 per cent, in the forties. In fact, Nova Recycling this year tell me that their rates are well below the embarrassing rates of last year. Can you tell the House today, when are you going to implement the recommendations of this report and increase the amount of refund given to people on recycling containers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite that this morning I, myself, and the deputy minister, met with the association for depot operators in the Province. They told me that over the last number of months they have seen an increase in the number of recycled containers, especially since we have introduced a new program to the schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member was given an opportunity to ask the question; now I ask him to extend the same courtesy to the minister.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They reported that there is an increase in the number of containers that are recycled. They have seen appreciable changes in that, especially from the schools where they are more engaged. I would say that over this year, when we make more changes to the recycling program, we will see even better percentages in the Province than we do now.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The new Janeway hospital will not be getting new modern technology in its imaging department. New hospitals across Canada, and in all G7 countries today, are now using a Picture Archive and Communication System (PACS). The hospital in Gander has such a system. The Quebec hospital just recently installed a system in five weeks.

This digital system gives immediate access to images in any part of the hospital and across the Province, basically, when the sites are all hooked up. It eliminates the need to transfer files from hospital to hospital by a courier, and considerably reduces costs. Indications were that the new Janeway would have this modern, safer and highly efficient system.

I want to ask the minister: Why are you now spending close to a $250,000 to install last century's system?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To my knowledge, and I will have to check it further, at the new Janeway we are installing equipment that is modern, up-to-date, and basically what they have agreed is what they need at this point in time, recognizing as well that there are always upgrades in technology that are dealt with in every budget process. I will certainly check it further, but I have had no indication whatsoever from the Health Care Corporation of St. John's that they are dissatisfied in any way, shape or form with the new equipment being purchased for the new facility.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister must not be in the loop, because I am fully aware of it and many other people who work in the system are fully aware of it.

Under PACS, the turnaround time for diagnosis is reduced from forty-eighty hours to two hours; the rate for lost films goes from 8 per cent down to 0.3 per cent, and repeat procedures from 5 per cent to 0.8 per cent. That means a quicker diagnosis, and it means less repetition of x-rays, reducing radiation exposure to the most vulnerable people - young children. Furthermore, it eliminates valuable time looking for lost films and valuable time repeating procedures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Why wouldn't you want a safer and more efficient system which cuts diagnostic time by a full two days?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do want the best possible system, and we are trying to work with the Health Care Corporation board to deliver just that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am appalled by the minister not being aware of this. This is a major and very important issue. The old system out there now requires films, envelopes for films, chemicals, considerable storage space, none of which are required under this new system. New studies are now raising health care concerns of people who handle those old films, that the residues could be very dangerous to their health. All university centres in Canada now have some form of PACS. In vertical examinations, electronic images are used, and the Royal College in Canada are now increasingly using this in their examinations. We have to get in the modern times. I ask the minister: Is he aware that equipment for the new Janeway was purchased specifically to link to PACS, and that other new equipment will have to be ordered now if PACS is not implemented.?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I have never wanted the job of being the CEO of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, and we have answered these questions in this Legislature many times before.

What I do know is this, that we are committed to the best possible system that we can deliver in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do know that we are spending over $130 million right now in St. John's to makes sure that we have the best possible facilities that we can afford and buy. I do know that $11 million of that are specific funds that are earmarked for new equipment for the Janeway alone. I do know that almost $30 million in new equipment for the whole of the facilities in St. John's is on order and is being delivered to St. John's as we speak; and I do know that the people running the system - not politicians like us, but people running the system who have no interest in politics but only an interest in health care - are out there making sure they have the best possible equipment at the earliest opportunity that they can get it in the facilities that they run on our behalf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I ask you: Wouldn't the real reason be that someone may benefit considerably financially by this new system down the road, and that is one of the reasons government is not being conducive and has not been listening to people benefitting from this system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no idea what the hon. gentleman is speaking about, but I can tell you it proves one thing for sure: that the interest of the hon. member opposite has obviously something to do with smirk and smut and dirt and politics and nothing to do with health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: He can get down in the mud if he wants to, but I will not be going there with him!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services, concerning home care. There were over 3,500 people, mostly women, working in this Province at wages paid from public funds, who are making an abysmally low wage; in fact, about one-half of what their counterparts in the public health care institutions make doing the same or similar work. This government has taken many actions to marginalize these workers, pretending they were not their employers when they were on strike in the Souther Shore home care strike, allowing agencies to go bankrupt, and further marginalize them by passing legislation that government was not the employer.

Report after report has indicated the problems with this situation, and pointed out the discrimination and the abysmally low wages being paid to home care workers. Will this minister act now to increase the wages of home care workers so that they can have the dignity of their work recognized by inadequate wage being paid for by public funds?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is clear that, contrary to what the hon. member says, the government has not taken deliberate or specific actions to marginalize this particular group of workers. What history will show is that we have a group of employees in Newfoundland and Labrador who started providing services in people's homes to support the elderly and those with disabilities in particular because they were social services clients who were sent into the homes to provide some work so that they could probably earn a wage, albeit the minimum wage or a little bit above, rather than continue on social assistance.

Over the last decade that program, which started out as a $300,000 program, has turned into a $30 million program in which the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador encourages training for the workers, albeit at this point, we still understand that the work is undervalued and underpaid. I am glad we did release the report last week - so that the hon. member could ask a serious question about it - in which it is recommended that we find a way to increase the wages and make sure that the service provided in the home, as the hon. member indicated, which is very similar to services provided in institutions, is valued at a higher rate and paid at a higher rate to reflect the very serious nature of the work. It is a matter which is before the government in the budgetary process that we are going through. I know, in speaking with representatives of the workers themselves and individual workers who have seen me and spoken to me, that they do not expect the Minister of Health and Community Services, the Minister of Finance or the government to give them an answer today or next week about whether or not their wages will be increased; but they do expect us to take a serious look at it and see if we can provide some increases in the next budget starting April 1 next year.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister obviously knows that government is increasingly relying on home care as a form of health care, discharging patients early from hospital. Obviously it is an important and necessary part of our health care system and the work is being improperly rewarded.

I ask the minister to use the same sense of urgency that the government had in finding $7 million last July for an unnecessary relocation policy, to apply funds for an immediate increase in the wages of home care workers today so that they can enjoy the benefits of a decent wage. That is something that the minister should do now and not wait for the budgetary process.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and just to give the scope and magnitude of the issue - the hon. member would also know it because I am sure he has a great interest in it, having read the report. In a five-year plan that is laid out with recommendations in that particular report from the study group, there are recommendations totalling almost $70 million, and that in the first year alone, next year, the government is being challenged to see if we can provide upwards of almost $30 million for this very important part of the health care system. That is one request from one very important part of the health care system that the government will have to deal with.

We understand that we will have several hundred million dollars worth of requests that all, in their own right, have value and worth, and have to considered. Whether or not the government will have anywhere close to several hundred million new dollars next year to spend, despite the value and worth of the service, is an issue that will be debated in the budget process. We intend to take it seriously, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the workers are looking forward to some moves in the right direction as we try to resolve this particular issue.

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Thursday, when the Minister of Justice announced a judicial inquiry into the shooting death of Norman Reid in Little Catalina, last August 26, he referred to, but did not release, the report of the Province's Chief Medical Examiner into the circumstances of the shooting.

The minister said that one of the recommendations he had received from the Dr. Avis report was that the Department of Health and Community Services review the support structures for people in the community with mental illness. Has the minister received a copy of the Dr. Avis report, and has he followed through on this recommendation by commencing an immediate review of the support structures for people with mental illnesses?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I expect the hon. member would stand up and congratulate us on not having waited for the report. We had instituted a review of mental health services in the communities long before this particular report became public last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: The mental health professionals and police, and others in the community say that the support structures for persons with mental illnesses simply are not there and the methods of dealing with them, when they find themselves in an acting-out situation, are archaic.

How much longer will we have to wait before this government starts taking seriously its obligation to put continuing support mechanisms in place to ensure that individuals suffering from mental illnesses get the care they need? In other words, when a professional is called for a person who has a mental illness do they continue to be brought to the lockup, or being as how you have started something else, are they still brought to the lockup and the Remand Centre?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We expect to be challenged, just as we are with respect to home-support services, with some recommendations that suggest that some money will be needed to provide additional services within the community.

Underneath the umbrella of our Strategic Social Plan we have been looking at ways to provide additional funding to our health and community services boards so that we can, in fact, in a whole range of areas, provide additional services in the community. The biggest dilemma that came to light in the Province, with respect to these unfortunate incidents in the last summer and early fall, was the fact that medical practitioners were forced to make a judgement in terms of values when they had patients of theirs with mental health problems, as to whether they kept them institutionalized, even though they felt that was not in their best interest, or whether they released them into the community when those medical practitioners already knew the level of service that was available in the community. They exercised their judgement and decided that on balance, it was better to have these people released back into the community for their mental health and overall health rather than keep them in institutions, even though they recognized and did know that the resources in the community were limited.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real dilemma for medical practitioners and it is an issue that I know will be challenged. We will likely see a price tag associated with several millions of dollars and in the budget process we will look at which services we can improve moving into the next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

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

Last fall I asked the question: Why there are not facilities in place either at the Waterford Hospital or some other institution to take care of individuals who are mentally ill or developmentally delayed? They find themselves in a situation where members of their family would have to call a social worker or somebody seeking help for them because they are in a crisis situation. The government has had more than a year to address this situation. What I am asking:
When the professionals de-institutionalized those folks and put them out into the community and they find themselves in a crisis situation, are they re-institutionalized at at the lockup, which is another institution? Are they continuing to be re-institutionalized at the lockup or Remand Center?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This issue has been explored through questions and answers in this Legislature before and the hon. member does know that there is no policy directive from anybody in government that suggests that a person, who is having a mental health problem, be taken to the lockup or remanded.

The fact of the matter is that all of these incidents are triggered by an act of violence. The people, in many instances, in responding to the initial call, do not know the nature of the person or the cause of the violence. Their number one priority is to make sure that the whole environment is secured and safe, then they will do an assessment as to the root causes and the treatment for the individual. So there are no such policies and directions, as the hon. member tries to suggest by way of questions in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada, according to the Premier - I would like to present the report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts regarding Treasury Board and the public hearing we had on special warrants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the committee, the staff of the committee and the witnesses who appeared. I will present it here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would also like to inform members that I have received the Report of the Auditor General earlier today at the Clerk's office, and in accordance with section 31 of the Auditor General's Act, I hereby table the annual report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present the report for the income support program for the fiscal year 1999-2000 as per section 5 of the Social Assistance Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board, tabling reports?

MS THISTLE: No, I thought you were in Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, No.2." (Bill 47)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS accountability and transparency must be the hallmark of any government in this Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately release the three-year plans of all the health care boards in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from the Administrator.

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

I, the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2000. By way of supplementary supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.


Sgd.: _________________________________
Clyde K. Wells, Administrator

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with the amount, be referred to Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2000, the sum of $70,838,500.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce into the House today Bill 27, the Supplementary Supply bill for 1999-2000. This Supplementary Supply bill provides the legal authority for the provision of funding over and above that which is provided in the original budget. The bill summarizes special warrants which were issued during the 1999-2000 fiscal year totaling $70,838,500.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I am just going to say a few words. I would assume that it is Bill 27 that she is talking about - $70,838,500 - another $70 million. Of course, each year we have three methods whereby government has the opportunity to spend money. We have the Budget, or the supply bill, the Interim Supply bill and the Supplementary Supply bill.

It is strange, but it was only today in this House that I presented a report on the Public Accounts Committee with respect to special warrants, and the use of special warrants by this Administration. In the report, of course, we found that this Administration - I have to be careful in the words that I use - certainly the Auditor General found, in the past, that the use of special warrants was abused by the Administration.

In 1997-1998, for example, there was $88 million spent on special warrants. This is a process by where the government can spend money without having to come before the House of Assembly for prior approval. Out of that $88 million, the Auditor General had problems with $30.9 million. She felt that it did not meet the criteria or the definition - really there is no definition - of urgent need or grave damage to the Crown or to the people of the Province.

Now we have, this very day, the government looking for another $70.8 million. It is a coincidence, I know, but it is something that I think the people of the Province should be considering.

Special warrants - again, I have to go back to that - can affect the bottom line of the budget. The Minister of Health, the wannabe Premier, should know that it affects the bottom line. Depending on your use of special warrants, you can have a surplus of cash, or you can have a deficit. Each year we find, over previous years, the Administration saying that we have a balanced budget. Last year, for example, what they were saying is that we had a $30 million deficit. In reality, if you take in the slush fund that they have in place, that $30 million contingency, in actual fact it was only a $4 million or $8 million deficit - I am not sure if it was $38 million or $34 million - whichever.

It is another $30 million that they have built into the budget that maybe the Minister of Health should have a look at and spend some of it on this PACS system that was brought up in Question Period today. The rumors are rampant throughout the system as to why they are not installing that PACS system. They are going to save millions and millions of dollars in the future if they put in that proper up-to-date system now with respect to radiology and x-rays in the new Janeway.

The Janeway, for example, started out at $80 million. Then it went up to $90 million, then to $110 million, then to $130 million, and we still do not have the bottom line. I do not know if that is considering furnishing and all the material that would go into a new hospital. I have been over there walking around and it is a nice spot, I have to say. It is a grand spot.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You see, there he goes. The Minister of Health is trying to make a smart remark; but you have to have some weapons upstairs to be able to make a smart remark, which he does not have. I suppose it is attached to the Health Sciences Centre.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to point out to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who just asked her colleague, how would this member know if he had anything upstairs? - referring to if he had anything upstairs or not - I refer her to a time before she came to the Legislature when a former Member for Placentia stood in his place and said there was only one thing certain of every member sitting in this place: that the Member for Cape St. Francis was the only member he knew who had a brain; because the doctor, six months previous to him getting here, had opened it up and saw it. That is how he would know.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a fact, and not only once but twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twice, to make sure.

MR. J. BYRNE: Twice, so they confirmed it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is still there?

MR. J. BYRNE: It is still there, growing and expanding, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

With respect to this bill, of course, the government is looking for another $70 million, and - they refer to it here - Finance is looking for $8 million more. They are not specific about what this is all about.

Works, Services and Transportation: $2,200,000. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should be looking for much, much more. In actual fact - I am going to make a comparison for you now - this past year, the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation had basically $12 million to spend on the roads in this Province. Technically he said $18 million but, when you take out engineering costs and whatever, $12 million for every nook and cranny in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and we have other areas where as much as $40 million on one item is being spent. That is something to think about.

Tourism, Culture and Recreation:$400,000. I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism - are you the Minister of Tourism now? - about that $400,000. There are so many, you cannot keep pace with what is going on over there. You have ministers; acting ministers; acting, acting ministers; Premiers; acting Premiers and what have you, so it is hard to keep track.

Education: $16,490,000. I hope, out of that $16,490,000, we are able to get another $5 million for the extension to Holy Trinity High School in Torbay. That is next on the agenda for the Avalon East School Board, from my information anyway.

Health and Community Services, I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services, $43,688,500. That is quite a chunk of money. Now, you may be going to use a certain portion of this, of course, to help with the deficits of some of the health care boards in this Province. We know that the health care boards, as every other department within government and other corporations, have been notified or asked to cut their budgets this upcoming year. God knows that we cannot afford to cut any more in health care in this Province. The federal government, over the past five years, have cut to the bone the health care in this country, and we saw the government members in this House of Assembly not say a word and accept everything. The former Premier, who has gone back to Ottawa now as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: As Industry or whatever; I do not know if it is Trade and Technology. Anyway, he has gone back to Ottawa to get more funding for health care. That was what was going on during the campaign, during the most recent election, and you have all kinds of news conferences talking about funding.

The strange part about it, of course, is that the present federal Minister of Industry, the former Premier of this Province, stood by when the federal government - and he was, I think, the Minister of Fisheries at the time - changed the formula for transfer payments to the Provinces on a per capita basis, knowing full well that the population in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was declining and we would get fewer dollars than we had gotten in the past. He supported that, and now he says he is going to go up and fight for more money, fight to change the transfer formula. Politics and politicians - I suppose there are some good ones. Most of them are on this side of the House; some good politicians.

This type of legislation, of course, is something that we often see coming before the House of Assembly. I would like, though, just the same, when the minister gets up, to respond to the question I have. I would like to be more specific with respect to the departments that are looking for this money: the Department of Finance; the Department of Works, Services and Transportation; the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; and the Department of Health and Community Services. I would like for the minister who is speaking to this today to be more specific on that issue.

I am not going to say much more on this topic. I don't know if someone else might want to say a few words on this piece of legislation here. You are, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and hopefully a few members on the other side of the House, the government side of the House, will get up and say a few words for a change on the legislation that they are putting through the House of Assembly. They very seldom speak to it, but if they are that supportive of it -

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't know anything about it.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the other point: very seldom do they even read the legislation. They just vote yes or no, aye or nay, depending what the House Leader tells them to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I just want to say a few words today, speaking to this particular bill, to raise an issue actually that was already mentioned by my colleague. I have mentioned it before in this House, and he has put me on to it again. It is all about the way the government spends money, and its priorities. I suppose anybody could get up at any given time and give a list of the way the government has spent money in the past, and try to see what the priorities were like, and see if they were put in good order so that we put our necessities first and luxuries second. That is one way of putting it.

The one that I always refer to is how we spend money in our transportation in this Province, especially when it comes to provincial roads. I have spoken about this many, many times, but a lot of people, of course, confuse it a lot of times. When you see the initial budget come out for transportation in this Province we always see numbers, like this year, somewhere over $100 million. That sounds good and looks good, especially to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whom I am talking about, who are still on gravel roads, or still on roads that are some twenty-five years old in some cases. When they hear that budget release - the same thing happened in my district this year - they say: My God, $100 million in road work this year.

They believe they are going to get a fair chunk of that; but, by the time you take all of that away and you explain to them that a lot of that is the Roads for Rail money, which is about to run out now in one more year, I believe - that is quite a substantial amount of money - and when we talk about the Labrador initiative, when you take away all of those things, and when you get down to the bare facts, the truth is that somewhere between $12 million and $15 million, in that area, in the last few years - I won't go back too far, but certainly in the last two or three years - there has been approximately $12 million to $15 million for provincial roads in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, let's take away all the other things and we will just talk about necessity. We all know that if we are ever going to get rural Newfoundland and Labrador to survive and revive, it is going to be through businesses that are there now that would expand or bring in new business in those communities.

I had an incident this year of a gold mine about to open up in my district, in that part of the Province. At the time, this very issue of road construction, road work, could have actually stopped that from going ahead. Right now, I am glad to report that it is going into its next phase and we hopefully will see a new up-and-running gold production mine in Central Newfoundland in the coming months, so it is good news.

I draw attention to that, to point out that the La Scie highway, which is some twenty-five years old, over fifty kilometers long, is probably one of the worst roads in Newfoundland and Labrador that is paved. I haven't gotten to the gravel roads yet; I am talking about roads that are paved.

The minister and his officials know that we have many La Scie roads around Newfoundland and Labrador that are about to come on stream. They are roads that have old pavement, somewhere between twenty and twenty-five years old, that is about to pop up and basically be impassible.

This particular mining company, which is about to move forward on a new gold mine opening in this Province, was going to be stopped. As a matter of fact, they were stopped very briefly simply because - it is a real embarrassment and a shame to all of us in this Province, any of us who sit in this Legislature, that a gold mine could have actually been held up, going into production, because we did not have a basic infrastructure. I am not talking about a four-lane highway. We are talking about a basic infrastructure. The La Scie road was in such a deplorable condition that people had to get out and protest, to stop traffic. They certainly were not going to let these huge trucks with ore go over that road.

The point that I am trying to make here today is: imagine, in order for a gold mine to go ahead in this Province, they were about to be stopped because we did not have the basic necessity of a road. Never mind the fact that people have to travel over it every day for their daily living. Never mind the fact that kids and school buses have to travel these roads. If we take all of those things out of the way, we basically had a situation where the production of a gold mine would have been brought to a halt, a standstill, if we never had to address the situation on La Scie Road. Luckily we addressed it somewhat, to a point, enough to at least satisfy people for the time being. There was some work done on that road this year, some eleven kilometres out of the fifty-one that needs to be upgraded and paved. That is the paved roads.

We will go further and we will talk about gravel roads. In my district there are still some eighty-five kilometres of unpaved roads. Another interesting fact, from the minister's own officials - and a lot of people do not understand or believe this - there are still over 900 kilometres of gravel road in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As we head into the new millennium, the year 2001, when we sent people to Mars, in Newfoundland and Labrador we still have 900 kilometres of gravel road; never paved. After we celebrated fifty years of Confederation of the greatest country in the world, we can still look at each other in the morning and know that we still have 900 kilometres of gravel roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then you talk about trying to get people in rural Newfoundland to believe that we are doing something for them. They say: we do not want four-lane highways. To add insult to injury, they turn on their taps and are told: Don't drink the water, boil it first. Now, we don't have a road and we don't have a drop of water to drink.

Mr. Chairman, you do not need to be an engineer or a scientist to know that if you are going to make people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador at least believe that you are trying to do something for them, shouldn't the government look at something significant in the way of a roads program? Twelve million dollars; and the minister has told me himself that there are some $300 million in requests for the last three or four years to do road work. Now get this, you do not have to be a mathematician; $300 million for the last two or three years and the government has put somewhere between $12 million and $15 million to address the problem. It is a growing concern. The fact is, if this continues and there is another $12 million or $15 million this year then we are in a lot of trouble in this Province. Not only are people upset about traveling over these gravel roads, that was bad enough for the last ten years, but these people have not even had them upgraded. They cannot even send the graders down there anymore. The depots are telling them to forget it; we cannot send the graders because there is nothing worth grading. So, forget the fact that it is not paved. Now they cannot drive over it because it is not even graded. Imagine, somebody having to call your office to tell you that their gravel road cannot be graded because there is nothing left to grade anymore. That is how far it has gone. This is an issue that I have been talking about for the last two or three years.

I say to the minister and the officials in his department, but more importantly to the government, to the people who make decisions, when they sit around the cabinet table and decide their budget for this year, for God's sake, do not look at the Minister of Transportation and tell him he is going to get $12 million again this year for road work and then you are going to put $40 million into God knows what. I could go through a long list of things today where the government is spending money. You could do a long list, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I could do a long list but I will not do that because I want to keep on the point that in order to address a growing crisis that is happening - that a lot of us pay no attention to and forget about and hope it is going to go away, but it is not. As we think it is going away people in rural Newfoundland are still driving over 900 kilometres of gravel road and every time they drive over it and blow a tire, or almost go off the road because of dust and trucks coming towards them, they say: My God, where are we living? In the year 2001, I am driving to my home over a gravel road. It is something that has to be addressed, and it has to be addressed soon.

On top of that I want to raise something here in the House today, as an example, of the federal election that just passed. When the hon. George Baker - and I have to give this example because I have had so many calls about it, and it has been so publicly addressed in my district - Mr. Baker serves part of my district, the Green Bay part. On two occasions, at least, where he had public meetings and said this - the last one was October 31 in Harry's Harbour where he told a public meeting, councillors, elected people: Listen, you did not get any pavement this year because - he got a surprise when he drove down over seventeen kilometres of gravel road to get to this community. He almost went off the road. He got to the public meeting with local councillors there and so, and told them that the federal government gave the provincial government, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, $18 million this year to put towards roads in the Province. Get this now, $18 million was forthcoming. This was a federal minister, a colleague, and he told them that there was $18 million in provincial road work this year. What a surprise, because from what I understand, the minister does not know anything about it and the government does not know anything about it. What a way to play politics in the middle of an election. Here were these people driving over this gravel road - they did not get any this year. I told them what the minister said, that there was $12 million for the entire Province for road work this year; but the hon. Mr. Baker, all of a sudden, tells them there is $18 million available for provincial roads in this Province.

They are playing with people's emotions. When these people are sitting back - they had their demonstration. They are upset and frustrated as they drive up and down the road in the summertime and wintertime; as their kids get on buses to go over this type of road. They are sick and tired of this type of politics being played with them. Now we have a member that has been there -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: This is a member who has been in federal politics for twenty-five years. Why shouldn't they believe him when he sits in front of the public and elected councillors and raps his fist on the table and tells them that there was $18 million from the federal government, given to the provincial government, in order to help with the provincial road structure in this Province this year? It is just unforgivable. It is something that somebody has to answer to one way or the other, either the Provincial Minister of Transportation will tell us - or if Mr. Baker would please return anybody's call out there because nobody has been able to get a hold of him, not one, since the federal election is over. I told them they should have kept in touch with him during the election because once it was over it was going to be tough.

I have a call gone into him myself to get a straightforward answer. The people in that community are simply saying: Mr. Baker, if it is right, then tell us there is $18 million somewhere in this Province for provincial roads that we do not know about; or if it is not right, say that you misled them and tell them the truth that there really is, in fact, no more money from the federal government.

On that note, I would suggest that the federal member - not a minister anymore - Mr. Baker, talk to his colleagues up there because there is only one way the problem here in this Province will be addressed, and that is if the provincial and federal governments come together, in a partnership, to address this growing concern; and it is rapidly getting worse in this Province when it comes to a provincial roads program. There is no way that the provincial government, with $12 million to $14 million a year, is going to address a $300 million-a-year problem that is steadily growing every year. It is not getting any better.

I heard from officials from around the Province in certain depots- I certainly will not mention their names here, but in a nutshell - saying that the $12 million that the provincial government is supplying for road construction is not even keeping up with the maintenance, never mind helping with other highways and putting down a little bit of pavement and there. It is not keeping up with the maintenance of the old paved roads, which some are twenty-five years old, and it is not keeping up with the gravel roads.

If we are ever going to entice businesses into rural Newfoundland and Labrador - for God's sake, we cannot let what happened in my district earlier in the year, when a new business was about to move in they came down there and said: We expected you to have a decent road. We did not even have a decent road. If we are going to address some of these concerns in rural Newfoundland, at least give them a chance to move forward.

In Harry's Harbour, the community I am referring to, has a beautiful potential for tourism. It has one of the nicest trails I ever walked on down there. They did a really good job with it. A great Newfoundland tourism potential. The Minister of Tourism knows this and worked on it. She knows that out in the Green Bay area there are some beautiful trails; the Alexander Murray Trail and the Harry's Harbour Hiking Trail. They had situations this summer where tourists would stop at King's Point, where the pavement ends, and say they could not drive over the road in that condition with their vehicles. That is why they would stop. So look at what it did for tourism. These people deserve a decent road so that they can at least have a chance in taking their own communities and moving them forward, whether it be forestry, tourism, mining or whatever it is, they deserve to know the truth about it. I certainly would recommend that any gravel road - especially this one in Harry's Harbour, it is one of the worse in the Province, I would say. The only answer for it is to pave it. They are not asking for anything too much, especially in this day and age, that this road should be paved.

Thank you very much.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise this afternoon to speak on this particular matter because this issue of special warrants is certainly something that has been addressed from time to time in this Legislature. Now members will recalled, or they should recall, that we have had many occasions over the years when special warrants have been issued but there is some documentation in each report of the Auditor General that talks about special warrants. In 1993 there were $2,500,000 issued in special warrants; in1994 it was $3,500,000; in 1995, $30,381,700; in 1996, $4,100,000; in 1997, $75,700,000; in 1998, $34,567,000; in 1999, $123,824,000; and in 2000, $70,838,500.

Members will know that special warrants comes under the Financial Administration Act. Section 28 outlines the conditions that have to be met for a special warrant to be issued, or I should say, it should meet the conditions. However, the Auditor General has expressed grave reservation. For example, in section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act it says that the necessity should be urgent. In other words: "Where the sum appropriated by the Legislature for a continuing service is insufficient to meet requirements and there are no countervailing savings available..." and the money is needed urgently, then a special warrant can be issued.

Section 28.3 is the other condition and it says: "Where the Legislature is not in session or when the House of Assembly has been adjourned for more than 30 days, and an expenditure not foreseen...". For example, if we happen to have a grave emergency as a result of water or flood damage or something like that. If it is not provided for in the Estimates and is urgently needed, and the House in not in session then: "The minister having charge or the new service must be of the opinion that the necessity is urgent and if not made, grave damage to the interests of the Crown or the public will result."

In the special warrants we are now looking at, it is outlined in the Report of the Auditor General on page 49 the reasons why these special warrants were issued. For example, it is to be noted they were all issued in March of 2000. All of them. One on March 10, 2000 to the Department of Education, we had $3 million; a grant to Memorial University of Newfoundland for the Memorial University Opportunity Fund. Surely goodness, we could have foreseen that was required to be in the regular Budget Estimates the year before. On the same day, March 10, 2000, to Education, there was a grant to Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation for $5,550,000.

When we are doing budgets - at the time we talked about all the budgetary preparations and you will remember the then Minister of Finance going all across the Province, having all kinds of consultations and saying we want to know what we should put in the Budget. Certainly goodness, somebody in the Department of Education should have told the Minister of Education that he should have put in money for the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation. Certainly goodness, somebody should have told the minister he should have put in his money for the Memorial University Opportunity Fund. No, on March 10 we required special warrants for these. On the same day, March 10, 2000 to Health and Community Services we had a grant to a number of entities for the following and they outlined them; $43,688,500. Now, all of these are supposed to be things of an urgent nature.

We had a lot of emergencies on March 10, 2000 because on the very same day in Tourism, Culture and Recreation we had an Operating Grant for the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, $400,000. On March 10, 2000 - it must have been a real bad day, a real stormy day for government that day because on that same day, to the Department of Finance, we had Grants for Crown Agencies as follows: Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation, $5,000,000; Marble Mountain Development Corporation $3,060,000 for a total of $8,060,000 made available on that same day, March 10, 2000, to these two named Crown agencies. The total special warrants issued for March 10, 2000 was $60,698,500. Then, on March 29 - another bad day - Works Services and Transportation found themselves in a real urgency that day because they had funds for hospital and construction projects as follows, and they outlined: Bonne Bay Hospital $850,000; Old Perlican Hospital $900,000, Fogo Island Hospital $450,000 for a total of $2,200,000. These things could not have been foreseen in all of the trips that the Minister of Finance, with his whole team, made across the Province. Nobody in the Department of Finance, nobody in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, could have foreseen that money would be needed, could not foresee that in the regular budgetary preparations.

On that same day, March 29, 2000, Grants to the University and Provincial Colleges as follows: Memorial University operations got $490,000; Provincial College Operations, $5 million; the Provincial College Training Programs, $2,450,000, for a total of $7,940,000. The total of special warrants on March 29, 2000 is $10,140,000. A total of all of that for March, just March alone, was $70,838,500.

Mr. Chairman, what we are doing today is approving retroactively that expenditure last year, because that money has all been spent. That is all gone. The minister gets up and gives up a thirty-seven second explanation in her introduction today. In thirty-seven or forty seconds or so, the minister gets up and says: I am going to give you, now, an explanation of why we needed that money.

The minister gets up and gives us her forty to fifty second, two good sentences, to explain why we had to spend $70,838,500; two reasonably good sentences. One, she says, we needed it; and, secondly, she says, we spent it. That was all the explanation we got. That money was all spent last year.

We know that all that money was spent in March for a very good reason; because, if you look at the way that this government works, what they found themselves with last year was having some money at the end of the year that they did not want to carry over to make a surplus position, so they said: Boys, we have money; we have to find a reason to use it. Therefore, they said, the only way we can use it is if we use special warrants.

Consequently, there is nothing here about an emergency, nothing here that meets the requirements of section 28, subsection (2) and subsection (3) of the Financial Administration Act, not at all. They said: We have the money, we have the surplus.

In the meantime, we had all those nurses out there who needed some extra help, and we had troubles all over the place in this Province. We had no money to be able to bring the RNC up to the 14 per cent that had been given to them in their collective bargaining processes, but who were told: No, you cannot have that - even though it had been given to them in a non-binding arbitrational procedure - but they had all this money that they had to find a reason to spend.

Mr. Chairman, what does the Auditor General say in her comments about this particular expenditure? She divides it into two categories. She looks at the $60.7 million -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: She looks at the $60.7 million and says: Well, let me talk about that first because I want to talk about what you spent in March, on March 10. That was a real bad day, as I said, because on that day they found themselves spending $60.7 million. She found out that although the special warrants totaling $60.7 million were issued on March 10, cheques for the $60.7 million of special warrants were not issued until March 27, between that and April 3. We had the urgency to spend this money and the authority to spend this money on March 10, but we never spent it until nearly a month after that.

Then she says, of the $60.7 million of special warrants, $28.4 million was not deposited until March 29; $9.1 million was not deposited until March 31; $22.8 million was deposited between April 5 and April 12; and the $400,000 was not deposited until July 21.

Mr. Chairman, if there is an urgency in government, if we require that kind of money, then one would assume that a reasonable delay in issuing the cheques might have been five or six days, or eight days, or maybe two full working weeks, ten days. Not one single cent of that $60.7 million was spent within ten working days. Because of the number of days that passed between March 10, 2000, when the special warrants were approved, and the dates on which the cheques were issued and deposited, and I quote here from the Auditor General, "...it is clear that no emergency existed at the time of approval of the special warrants."

The Auditor General is quite clear. She is saying that, on one hand, the minister stands and says, we needed this money - and there is an assumption that the minster of all ministers in the government, the President of Treasury Board, which has the mandated authority in legislation to be the guardian of the public purse - that is what the President of Treasury Board is all about, the guardian of the public purse - this minister, of all ministers, not only should she live according to the law in the administration of her duties, but she should be the watch dog on all other miniseries. This minister not only should be looking after her own responsibilities, but when the Minister of Education wants money, she should say to him: Mr. Minister or Madam Minister, whatever is appropriate, I am sorry but your request is not an urgent matter and therefore does not meet section 28, subsection (2) and subsection (3) of the Financial Administration Act. I am sorry but I cannot approve that.

She should have mandated - well, she has mandated - to her office the clear responsibility to do it. Obviously, according to the Auditor General, and I quote again, "... no emergency existed at the time of approval of the special warrants. The House of Assembly was sitting on 13 March 2000, the next business day immediately after the issuance of the special warrants, and remained sitting until 11 May 2000."

There was lots of time to come to the House, but it did not happen.

MR. HARRIS: They went ahead and did it anyway.

MR. H. HODDER: They went and did it anyway.

There is another section, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that says, if the House is in session, you have to inform the House in three sitting days.

That did not happen. Therefore, the minister has clearly failed in her responsibilities to make sure that the Financial Administration Act to this Province is the rule by which the government works.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi can have his chance in a few moments, I am sure, to have a few comments, and he can use all of those comments at that time.

Moving to March 29, 2000, on that date $10.1 million was approved. This is the Works, Services and Transportation money, the amount we mentioned there, the $2.2 million. On that same day, we had $7.94 million approved for the Department of Education. It says that the budget for that department was $33.2 million and the expenditure for the year was $30.7 million. In other words, they had a budget of $33.2 million, they had spent $30.7 million, and yet they said: we want $2.2 million more. How can you justify saying, we want $2.2 million more when you haven't spent the money that had been approved for your department in the original budget? What is happening here is, this is a way in which government creates its own surplus, its own deficit, and can do it by manipulating the special warrants in these matters. Mr. Chairman, clearly the department did not require the $2.2 million approved in a special warrant, and no emergency existed at the time of the approval of the special warrant.

Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General has indicted the President of Treasury Board for lacking the wherewithal, the firm determination, to say: I have the job to enforce the Financial Administration Act. Today she has no choice but to stand in her place and say: I failed miserably in my responsibility.

Let's look at the $7.94 million approved for the Department of Education on March 29. We note that the vouchers and the cheques, supporting the expenditures for the Department of Education, were dated March 31, and cheques were also deposited on the same date. The House of Assembly was in session when the special warrant was issued and, of course, the government could have come to the House and asked for a supplementary bill or whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't, did they?

MR. H. HODDER: They didn't. Of course, again there was no urgency and no need for the special warrant.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what we clearly have here is a situation where the government uses special warrants to create a surplus or a deficit, just as it desires. Those of us who know a wee bit about public finance will know that you can manipulate financial figures to suit whatever purpose you have. In this particular case the government wanted to come into the House to say that it had a pretty good budget. It did not have a surplus, it had a little deficit, because, you know: we had all those nurses out there knocking on the doors, we had the RNC, we had the teachers and we had special needs kids. We had told the people living in public housing that they couldn't have any help to get extra money for special things they might need, like furniture. We told people that we just can't afford it. In fact, the Premier of the day was talking about: we have to make those tough decisions. He said, government is all about choices and we have to make some really tough decisions. Of course, with the nurses in the gallery, and everybody else, they talked about those really tough times.

At the very same time that we had the nurses so upset, what is government doing? They are producing a budget that they would like to have. What they do with that is, they make an expenditure of $70.83 million. Let me read what happened, because this is all part of the Hydro deal as well, the Hydro expenditure. Let me read page 43, which says, "For the 1999-2000 fiscal year, if Government had not issued special warrants in contravention - note the language - "of the Financial Administration Act and had received the Hydro dividends, sinking funds and guarantee fees in the amounts it had budgeted, it would have reported a cash surplus of $167.1 million rather than a cash deficit of $13.0 million." In other words, what we have here is government using its special warrants for creative bookkeeping. Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear.

Now we, on this side, are not against the use of special warrants. What we are saying is that special warrants should meet the requirements of section 28, subsection (2) and subsection (3) of the Financial Administration Act. Really, what we have here is government today covering its tracks. Nearly a year ago now, nine months ago, this government spent money that it had no authority to spend. Not only did it spent money it had no authority to spend, but the spending procedures contravened its own legislation. That should be a concern for the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. That should be a concern for this government. This government prides itself on its secrecy - and thank God for the Auditor General, because at some time or another, certain things that are held secret by the government, some of them do get brought out in the Auditor General's Report.

Mr. Chairman, this House is being asked today to condone, to say to the government - or the government wants to say to us, I should say: we know that we did not do it right, we know that we disobeyed the law, we know there was no urgency, we know that if we had not done this we would have to report a deficit of $167 million cash surplus, but no, we did not want that to happen. We wanted to create the circumstance whereby we could have a small cash flow deficit.

What does the Auditor General say about this? This quote that I am looking for, the section, I had it a few moments ago. Let me read again from the summary booklet, page four. She says: "This year I am again expressing my concern with the manner in which the Government is calculating its surplus or deficit". I am again quoting the Auditor General. She says: "Specifically, I am concerned about the way Government can "adjust" its actual revenues, and expenditures to achieve whatever surplus or deficit it desires, through the use of special warrants or through the deferral of budgeted revenues." The referral of budgeted revenues, of course, refers to Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, when we are talking about special warrants, that is the money we are talking about here. The Auditor General cannot write more condemning language than she has written here. How much more clear can it be? Quite obviously, the Auditor General says that the government can adjust its actual revenues and expenditures to achieve whatever surplus or deficit it desires for the use of special warrants or through the deferral of budgeted revenues. She says again, for the 1999-2000 fiscal year, if government had not issued special warrants in contravention of the Financial Administration Act and received hydro dividends, sinking funds and guaranteed fees in the amount they had budgeted, it would have reported a cash surplus of $167 million rather than a cash deficit of $13.0 million.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister, when the minister stands on her feet in the next few minutes - and I am surprised she has not been up on a point of order - telling me that she is sorry she has only used forty or fifty seconds to explain this matter. How can the minister, in introducing a bill, go for fifty seconds or a minute maybe, two good sentences explaining how they contravened the Financial Administration Act, how they created a surplus or a deficit that they desire, and did it all without having the authority of the Legislature; and then to come back in here today and say, let us not talk about that?

Mr. Speaker, this is what is wrong with this government. When a minister stands on her feet and uses two sentences to explain spending $70 million without authorization, we should be concerned. All of Newfoundland and Labrador should be concerned because obviously the one minister in this government who should be the watchdog of the public treasury, and even the watchdog over the Minister of Finance, because Treasury Board is the watchdog - all of the departments have to go to the President of Treasury Board and say: we want authorization to spend the money that is in the budget. That is what Treasury Board does. That is the role of Treasury Board. The President of Treasury Board is the most powerful ministry on that side of the House, more powerful than the Minister of Finance. She has more clout than any other minister over there because the President of Treasury Board is the public's watchdog for all other ministries.

Maybe the President of Treasury Board does not want to be told that, but that is what it is. That is what the theory of government is all about, that is how it works, but obviously the President of Treasury Board has not fulfilled that responsibility.

I am not only indicting the minister today, I am indicting the whole government over there. The Minister of Education at the time knew he was not meeting the requirements of the Financial Administration Act, so did the Works, Services and Transportation minister. They knew they were not meeting them, but they simply went and did it anyway. Forget about the laws of the Province!

Mr. Chairman, what happens in other jurisdictions if people forget about the law? They get into trouble. If someone else went out and broke the law, they would get into trouble. But, what do we have happen today? The President of Treasury Board breaks the law, ignores the law, and then she says: I want to come into the House, and we are going to pass an act through the Legislature, which authorizes the breaking of the law, as I did nine months ago.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing that we, on this side of the House, are going to have trouble with, it is passing this particular piece of legislation. Because we, on this side, are not going to condone the secrecy and we are not going to condone the way in which we ignore the Financial Administration Act of this Province. We are going to say to this minister today: If you want to use special warrants then you had better make sure that they are not used for creative budgetary purposes. That is what has happened here. There were no emergencies. Not one single dollar that was spent last year, almost $71 million, met the requirement of the Financial Administration Act. Not a dollar!

We are supposed to be here for another few days and we know that this should be passed, but I can say to the minister that she can expect a very rough time, because we, on this side, are certainly not going to fail in our responsibility. If this minister fails in her responsibility, as outlined by the Auditor General and definitively stated by the Auditor General, we, on this side, will not fail in the duty which is put before us as members of this House, to hold that minister accountable. Maybe, just maybe, that minister might stand in her place sometime this afternoon, maybe tomorrow, and give an explanation and tell us that the Auditor General was wrong. But if she just tells us that, we will not accept it. She has to tell us why, for each of the categories - as I said, they were all issued on one day; two days if you count March 10 and March 29 - why this minister solved those emergencies on those days and why the Auditor General, in her examination, concluded that no emergency existed.

I say to the minister: It is incumbent upon you, as the watchdog of the government, not only to explain to the House, but we would like to hear some of the comments that you had in Cabinet, when you said to your Cabinet colleagues; Roger, or you said to Paul, or you said to whomever the minister was: I am sorry, you do not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act, you cannot have that money today. I look forward to the minister's explanation, but I know there are some of my colleagues over here who would like to have a few comments on this particular bill as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR(M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased today to stand and see if I can follow in the footsteps of my colleague from Waterford Valley, whom, I have to say, was right on today. He was a bit excited after the weekend. The President of the Treasury Board has him up on his feet and he is telling the President of Treasury Board that she is going to have a hard time this week. So I am looking forward to a follow-up to his speech just a few moments ago.

We are here today, Madam Chair, to discuss an act and debate a piece of legislation that would put $70 million back into the coffers, that has been spent already and was not authorized to be spent. Then we wonder why this government is looking for $70 million. We have to go no further today than what the Member for Waterford Valley talked about. It was the fact that the Auditor General's Report today shows us that we have some major deficiencies in the books of this government. We have some major deficiencies in how this government is keeping its books, and how they are taking care of the dollars that they have been entrusted with by the people of the Province. We are not looking for $700; we are not looking for $7,000; we are not looking for $700,000, we are looking for $70 million of unauthorized spending that this government has taken.

Now we pick up the Auditor General's Report and I would like to start today, if I could, with a few examples from the Auditor General's Report. We have the Report of the Auditor General in our hands now only a few moments. There are some major concerns here and there are a couple of things that I have to touch on. There are a couple here and, certainly, some major concerns.

Pieces of artwork in the Province - I found this really, really interesting. I think there should be an immediate investigation into where the art is. Listen, if you would, Madam Chairperson, "Our examination of 506 pieces of artwork determined that 102 pieces, at a cost of $106,463, could not be accounted for by the officials of the Art Procurement Program." One hundred and two pieces at $106,000, give or take $1,000 a piece. Now, are they going out with it under their arms? Are they going out with it in boxes? Are they sliding it out the windows of the floors here down into waiting vehicles? There are a lot of questions here. Did a lot of this go in the fall of the year when the time went back and it got dark at 4:00 p.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on a conveyer belt.


MR. MANNING: On a conveyer belt. There must be a conveyer belt in action somewhere. I mean, we are talking about 102 pieces of art. We are not talking about a lunch bag when we are talking about pieces of art. I walk through these hallways here, and there is artwork on the walls that is 6 foot wide and 4 foot wide, Madam Chairperson, 24 square foot pieces of artwork. Did someone put it in a paper bag when they left here with it? Is it gone under somebody's arm?

"An additional 72 pieces of art, at a cost of $119,309, were located either in a different room or building from that identified by the inventory information system..."(page 257)

Now, we have to ask many questions on the art work. There is a very major concern here, that we could have 102 pieces of art work missing and nobody seems to care where it is. There is no investigation into it.

I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Is all of the art work in your office?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: It is? Are you sure, Minister, or are you more concerned about brush cutting than you are about art?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Brush. There you go, brush cutter himself.

There are a lot of pieces of art missing. The inventory information system also identified sixteen pieces of art work at a cost of $5,365 as lost, gone, never to be seen again, never to walk through the halls and the corridors of this building and enjoy the beautiful art work on the wall.

Here we have people out in the Province today, we have senior citizens in our Province today, who have to pick between putting something to eat on their tables or putting oil in their furnaces - that is the decision they have to make, one or the other - and at the same time we have $106,463 worth of art work which has gone missing. That is a major concern that we have.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, yes, there are some major concerns and we have to get to those later.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I have just given you a couple.

MR. MANNING: Yes, and I am glad I have a fair bit of time on my hands.

I am going to move on to a couple of other situations that I found here which were kind of eye-popping. We have some major concerns, and to be here today looking for $70 million that you already have spent -

AN HON. MEMBER: A year ago.

MR. MANNING: A year ago. We are talking about up to March 31, 2000, Mr. Chair or Madam Chairperson.

I have a problem getting used to having a madam in the Chair. As I said last week, it is a welcomed gesture but it just takes awhile to get used to. If I call you mister every now and again, I ask you not to think I am chiding you in any way. It is just that the Minister of Government Services and Lands towers above you over there, and when I look up I see him.

Madam Chairperson, there are certainly some major concerns here. The Member for Ferryland has been on his feet several times in this House talking about operating deficits for the Health and Community Services boards, and there are some major concerns. We have situations in the Province where we have beds closed. We have, in buildings, equipment that does not have the personnel, does not have the human resources, to operate that equipment. At the same time, we have the total liabilities of the four boards increased from $800,000 at March 31, 1998, to $7.4 million at March 31, 1999, and further increased to $9.2 million at March 31, 2000. The financial position and operating results of the four Health and Community Services boards remain in poor condition in 1999-2000, according to the Auditor General.

When we talk about the situations in the Province, when we talk about the issues that are in our Province, when we talk about the concerns that people have in our Province, there is no other concern that reaches the height of the situation that our health care is in.

We all understand there are not enough dollars to take care of everything. I think we should be more concerned with and put more emphasis on spending the dollars we have more wisely. That is, I guess, the number one concern of this side of the House in relation to how this government spends its money. There is no control. She is out of control over there. There is no doubt about it, when you have $70 million that they spent last year that they are looking for now - unauthorized. You know, we have the two members here sitting now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes. We have the new Liberal caucus in the front now, Madam Chairperson, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, and the Minister for Forest Resources and Agrifoods. I was thinking about these two gentlemen the other night. There are a lot of times we turn on the television and we look over in Israel, Egypt, and all those other places over there, and you hear stories, some really heart-gripping stories. When I was listening to one of those stories the other night, I brought it down to the level here in Newfoundland, and I thought on the two fellows in the front row here siting down. You talk about two people on a suicide mission. I am telling you, if ever there were two on a suicide mission before in Newfoundland, they are sitting right here in the front row now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thunder and lightening.

MR. MANNING: Yes, thunder and lightening.

If you talk about it, they are on a suicide mission, to be at it after being in this House for as many years as the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods has been, and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, a former minister of the Crown, who has been here a good many years. When I heard the story out of Israel the other night on CBC Radio, as I was driving along, all I could think of was that there is a suicide mission going right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The two gentlemen here in the front, one on each side of the Minister of Mines and Energy at the present time, are on what I would call a suicide mission. You have a better chance of ending up at the end of the road with nowhere to go than you have of ending up in Cabinet.

The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods has a better chance of coaching the Montreal Canadians than he has of being a minister. I say to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods - because he was talking to the Government House Leader - that I was listening the other night and I have come to a conclusion that both you and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island are on what I would call a suicide mission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, I am not sure about that now.

The Member for Bellevue could teach a thing or two about suicide missions, because he is after being on a couple himself. There is no doubt about it.

It was interesting to watch over the past couple of days. The former Minister of Fisheries is out on the campaign trail, traveling around the Province, and he could not get any support from that side of the House. Not one person on that side of the House would stand up with the former Minister of Fisheries. Now we have the Minister of Fisheries out saying that health care is in a mess. The former Minister of Fisheries, who sat at the Cabinet table for I do not know how many years, who only now realizes that health care is in a mess in this Province, is out traveling around the Province. The part that concerns me the most is how a person like the former Minister of Fisheries, who has been here for so long, ended up being treated when he went looking for some support. I touched on that last week.

I watched him last week when he came in and headed for his old chair. People may think this is not the truth, but I was here in the House of Assembly when the former Minister of Fisheries came into the House and was not sure where he was supposed to sit. Before, when we were here in the spring session, he was down here. He figured he would be heading back at least somewhere in the same vicinity where he would find his chair, but he came in and he did not know where to sit. He looked at the Premier and said, what did you do with my chair? Even though he aspires to be in the Premier's chair - and I am not convinced yet that he is not going to be there. Even though there are a lot of people on that side of the House who do not think he is going to be in the Premier's chair, I am not convinced that he is not going to be there.

I was out in my district on the weekend and I know, for example, there are delegates from my district who are coming in, who are supporting the Minister of Fisheries, and I know there are delegates from other districts. The Minister of Government Services and Lands cannot deliver all of his delegates to the Minister of Health. I know that for a fact. I know you have six for sure.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I am talking about your district. Six of your delegates are with the Minister of Fisheries. I am telling you, if you cannot deliver your names - you had better get down to Goose Bay and get at it.

The former Minister of Fisheries came into this House last week, after spending so many years here, after getting half of you elected over there, and he did know where his seat was. He did not know where to sit. He was standing up there, and he said: Premier, Beaton, where did I sit?

He did not know where to sit. How could you do that to a former colleague? How could you do that to someone who could be in the Premier's chair?

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Bellevue, are you trying infer that the Minister of Fisheries doesn't know how to read the paper?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Madam Chair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. MANNING: Maybe the former Minister of Fisheries did not see the sheet of paper. All I know is that he came in here and he wasn't sure where he was going to go.

What happens next month, what happens in the first week of February, when the former Minister of Fisheries comes back in here and sits in the Premier's chair?

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave to speak?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave granted.

MR. MANNING: I thank the Member for Bellevue for not taking away my leave, Madam Chair.

I just want to get back, if I could, because I find that we are here today - you are after spending $70 million that you were not allowed to spend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Port au Port - I have known the Member for Port au Port for a long time - as a government, you have spent $70 million that you were not authorized to spend. If you get your paycheck and you spend a little bit more this month, that is not too bad, you can manage maybe to scrape it back next month, and again the next month you do that; but if you keep spending and spending, like drunken sailors - $70 million is not pocket change. Seventy million dollars is not something you have in your pocket when you are dodging down the road. Seventy million dollars is a helluva lot of money.

Madam Chair, $70 million is a fair amount of money. The fact that you were not authorized to spend it, now we are here today and you want us, on this side of the House, to say: Go ahead; you have spent like drunken sailors, you bought things that you should not have bought, you traveled all over God's globe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Don't worry. I did okay on that, too, when all the dust settled.

I say to the Member for Bellevue, there are going to be other members here soon who will have money in the bank too.

There is a concern certainly raised on this side of the House, and not only on this side of the House but throughout the Province, the fact that you have $70 million spent, that we did not budget for.

If we sit down here and do a budget, we can't think that we are going to spend $70 million. If we were here today and we were talking about $5 million or $6 million over the total budget of the Province for the last fiscal year, I could understand it, or if we where here due to other concerns with situations in the Province and we were talking about $15 million or $20 million, but we are talking about $70 million that was unauthorized and has been spent throughout the Province by different ministers.

How much of the $70 million was spent on travel? How much of the $70 million was spent on paintings? We will get back to the paintings. There are 102 paintings missing - gone. There must be a conveyor belt off one of the floors here, passing out the paintings, because 102 paintings is a lot of paintings. According to the Auditor General we have 102 gone, disappeared, without a trace, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pieces of art.

MR. MANNING: Pieces of art work that are gone. There is no idea of where they are, Madam Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Were they paintings of you?

MR. MANNING: I can guarantee you, I say to the Member for Bellevue, that definitely nobody took a painting of you, unless they took it down to the local dart club.

To get back to it, we have $70 million that was unauthorized and that has been spent by this government, that you are asking us to approve. To tell you the truth, as the Member for Waterford Valley said to the President of Treasury Board, you are in for a hard time if you think you are only going to get $70 million lickety-split from this side of the House, because it is not going to happen that easily.

Why do we have deficits, Madam Chair? Why do we have $70 million over what we budgeted for last year? We have to go no further than to look at some of the things that have happened in the past year. Just look back to January of 1999. According to the Auditor General the department wrote off loans totalling approximately $1.2 million for one company, which included the payout of a loan guarantee of $425,000. Although the department had a charge on the company's assets, they did not realize on its security.

I would like to ask somebody here: How many companies out there are finding it hard to survive, finding it hard to pay their bills? How many companies out there are being chased down by sections of government, by the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, the Department of Finance or by the President of Treasury Board? How many companies out there are being chased down for their payments and more or less, told that they are going to be shut down unless they make their payments? At the same time we have a company here who gets written off $1.2 million and as part of that, a loan guarantee of $425,000. How do we explain to the small business operator out there who is finding it very difficult to keep his head above water, to meet the month's payroll and other bills, and at the same time we have a situation here - further on it says: Cabinet authorized a Crown corporation, the Newfoundland Industrial Development Corporation, to provide the same company with a grant of $105,000 and a loan of $250,000. We are going to be checking this out because the $250,000 term loan provided by NIDC is interest and payment-free for the first three years. After this three year period the loan is to be repaid over seven years and will bear an interest rate of 8.75 per cent. NIDC has taken a security position on the same assets which the company used as security for the loan provided by the department, and which was written off.

There are some major concerns here within the expenditures of government, and some major concerns with how much money out there for which is unaccounted. We are, in this House of Assembly - and most importantly on that side of the House of Assembly - caretakers of the people's purse. We are caretakers of the people's money, and to think that we are here now looking for $70 million over the next couple of days to offset expenditures of this government in the last fiscal year, certainly concerns me as a member; and I am sure it concerns many of the people in the Province today.

In finishing up my remarks I would like to say that to be brought here to the House of Assembly today with so many concerns out in this Province, with so much out-migration going on in this Province, with so many people finding it hard to make ends meet, with children going to school hungry, with all the concerns out there, and to be here today looking for $70 million that she overspent certainly concerns me as a member and I am sure it concerns many people throughout the Province. Seventy million dollars, as I said before, is not just pocket change. If we had saved that $70 million last year, if we had spent our money wisely last year, if we had not been here today looking for $70 million, we could have taken that $70 million and put it into health care, hospital beds, hiring some people within the system; but no, we are here looking for $70 million that basically was not authorized in last year's budget. It is certainly a concern that we have - an opportunity to stand today and say a few words on it and I am sure that over the next couple of days we will get a chance to make some comments again.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: I rise today to speak as well on Bill 27, the Supplementary Supply Act, 1999-2000. I rise, Madam Chair, to speak because it has been so hard to believe that in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: She does not take my comments seriously. She is gone, okay. I am kind of disappointed but I will save the good stuff until you come back. Maybe someone else on the other side may be listening over there, right?

I certainly have to go back and look at $70 million that this supply bill - just imagine $70 million in the space of just a couple of months. To be looking for this amount of money suggests what a terrible waste someone or some agency within the government is certainly not doing as is required.

I will just go to the school boards, and that is a point in question, because the school boards - certainly as the former Minister of Education sitting there can attest. In 1996 the twenty-seven church run school boards gave way to the eleven school boards that we have at this present time; and 1996 does not seem that long ago. As a matter of fact, we are talking about four short years ago. I remind the members on the other side especially, if you remember 1996 - well it was in 1997 with regard to the referendum - and the promises that were made at that particular time. Well, the people could not wait to get on with the educational reform that they were promised and were, I suppose, sold. With the disillusion of the twenty-seven church run school boards and the creation of the eleven new - ten English and one French - the anticipation was just absolutely astounding as people looked for better schools and better programming. They would now have a handle on duplication of services, duplication of busing services, of having schools in the same community, of now cutting down so we have the neighborhood schools. We would have a situation whereby - with declining enrolments, with the drop in the number of students - the savings would be such that there would be absolutely no worry in the world that the government would be able to deliver a system of education which would be second to none, not only in this country, but indeed the world. What an opportunity, I say to this House, that this government had to really make a difference. Again, I say to you, that was four short years ago, 1996; the promises, the commitments. It was very well documented. All you have to do is go back in Hansard, I would imagine. I was not here at the time but I can imagine what members on the other side of the House must have said as they rose in support of this initiative.

Let us go from 1996 to the year 2000, I say to my colleague. In those four years, certainly there have been savings. As a matter of fact, if you look at the latest release on the figures you are talking about savings of something to the order of $27 million-plus. Can you imagine, $27 million have been taken out - we assume they are savings - and spent somewhere else. That is $27 million which has been taken out of the education system that was there in 1996, just four short years ago. It was there. It was promised to be used to make sure that within a short period of time older schools would be replaced, leaky roofs would be fixed, new schools erected, busing taken care of, programming, all of these promises were given.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I am getting to that, I say to the member.

These promises were made and $27 million-plus have been taken out of the education system and spent somewhere else. Now, what do we hear? Four short years later, we have a report here which says that during 1999-2000, eight of the eleven boards have incurred operating deficits. They are in the red! Eight of the eleven boards in this Province now -

MR. J. BYRNE: Health boards (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: These are school boards. Eight of the eleven school boards -

MR. H. HODDER: Avalon East is $1 million in the red.

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that?

MR. H. HODDER: Avalon East is (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Avalon East, and that is only a projection. They are only saying that at this present day; but eight of the eleven boards - now again, go back to 1996 -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many of the eleven?

MR. HEDDERSON: Eight of the eleven. It could be eight-and-a-half, but eight of the eleven are now incurring operating deficits. They do not have enough money to give the basic service to the students under their jurisdictions. How can this be so? Why would a government allow school boards - because if I am not mistaken and someone correct me, it is against the school act to have boards operating under deficits. So, it is not something that was not anticipated because it was put into the act. I guess the government of the day was so sure this would never happen that they included it in the act, that they would not - unless it was approval given by the minister. The minister could give approval and they could incur operating deficits but there was no ministerial approval in these eight boards. So here you have a government that is forcing boards to operate under the guidelines that are not allowed. It is against the school act to have a deficit and yet eight of them have one.

As well, they have to have their budget into the minister as, I guess, every year. Boards are asked to do their finances, to do the audit and to make sure that these budgets are into the minister as of September 30 of any given school year. Lo and behold, in this past year only six of the school boards had their 2000-2001 budgets - which was required under the act - would have had them in to the minister prior to September 30, 2000. Again, it is amazing. It is truly amazing that they can circumvent the act - that the minister can allow the act to be contravened, that these boards - and then it gets to the reason. Now, this is a good one. This is the best one. This is the one you have to listen to because there is a reason why the boards are operating at a deficit.

MR. SHELLEY: What is the reason?

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, it is a good reason.

MR. SHELLEY: What is the real reason?

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, I am not saying the real reason yet, but the reason that the department - because the department had to respond to these deficits. They had to give some reason and lo and behold - and I think the Minister of Finance stood the other day and talked about fuel costs, how they cannot have any control over it or anything at all - but here is the response from the Department of Education which is saying why so many of the boards - eight out of eleven of the boards are operating because the one significant, uncontrollable factor - it is not their fault. It is certainly not the fault of the Department of Education. It is certainly not the fault of this government but there is one significant, uncontrollable factor which contributed to these deficits and that was the significant increase in fuel costs for schools and board operated bussing systems. The millions of dollars of deficits that are in here now we can blame it on the rising fuel cost.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: It is absolutely; but the real reason why - I say to the Treasury Board President - the real reason they are coming to you now and asking for money is because of mismanagement. Because what has happened - and it is not mismanagement on the part of the boards because these boards now - and I have reports coming in on a daily basis asking: How is it that boards are trying to operate schools under budgets that will have their supplies run out even before Christmas? It is unreal. You don't have to go very far, just ask school councils who had to go to school fees. That is another story. I won't even get into that. What I am saying to the Treasury Board President is that I would ask about the request for this particular money, because what has happened, and what I am asking, is what about the $27-plus million that has been saved by the closing -

CHAIR(Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: The member has leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here till 5:30 p.m., I can see, I say to the members.

Again, to get back to that $27-plus million, that was in four years. I also have to indicate that the number of students - this is the argument that comes from the other side over there. That is the argument that keeps coming up time and time again. We have less students. Would you believe we have less students, and since 1996 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fewer students.

MR. HEDDERSON: Fewer students. I am glad that you corrected me on the English part of it there. Sometimes when I am up on my feet I kind of forget about that.

Again, I am trying to impress upon the House the time frame, from 1996 to 2000, four years, wherein the student population has decreased. It has gone from 110,000 down to 90,000, realizing that there has been something like 100-plus, 105 schools, that have been closed down in the last four years. I think it is 105. And they are still having deficits. Eight of the boards operating have a deficit. I think it is absolutely terrible. It is shameful.

Again, I say to the President of Treasury Board: look closely at what is happening out there with regard to school boards trying desperately to provide a system of education, a level of education, a level of delivery of education, that was promised - I say promised - in 1996, just four short years ago. Now we have eight of the boards, if not all of the boards, operating at deficits.

Help is needed out there and I would encourage the President of Treasury Board to look at the situation and whatever it takes to try and make sure that these school boards are doing what is best for the children of this Province.

I say to the Chair, I will leave it on that particular note and give way to one of my other colleagues.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak for a few minutes on the Supplementary Supply Bill currently before the House. In doing so, I have to say that there is a real question here as to why we are even involved in Supplementary Supply at all. Because I sat here, as well as everybody else present, the day the House opened and heard the Minister of Finance talk about how well things were going, talk about how the fiscal performance for the 2000-2001 fiscal year remains on target with our budgeted deficit of $34.7 million, which included a contingency reserve of $30 million. The very next sentence he went on to say: "Our revenues remain on target with the budget forecast." If your revenues are the same and your expenditures are the same, and within budget, what are they going to do with the $70 million? Is that the new estimate for the relocation of the public servants, not $7 million but $70 million? What is the explanation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven times seventy.

MR. HARRIS: Seven times seventy.

I am just reading from Hansard, Mr. Chairman. I refer you to page 1280 of Hansard. I am quoting from the Minister of Finance of December 4, 2000, Fiscal Outlook. I quote: "Mr. Speaker, while economic growth does not necessarily result in similar levels of revenue growth, I am pleased to report that overall our fiscal performance for the 2000-2001 fiscal year remains on target with our budgeted deficit of $34.7 million, which included a contingency reserve of $30 million." Hansard notes, at that point, "Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!" I suspect that the hear, hears were coming from the members on that side of the House who were cheering the Minister of Finance for having a budget on target with revenues and expenditures in the same ballpark at those budgeted.

Then his next sentence "Our revenues remain on target with the budget forecast." What are we doing with $70 million? Eight million dollars to the Department of Finance alone. Here is the minister whose budget is on target and he wants to dip in for another $8 million. What for? Department of Works, Services and Transportation, $2.2 million. His revenues are on forecast,. his budget is in keeping with the plans, and he want $2.2 million. Tourism, Culture and Recreation, another $400,000. Madam Minister, if your budget is on forecast, what do you want $400,000 for? Education, $16.4 million. Budget on target, revenues showing what they are expected to show, and then the minister who cannot believe it, when it comes to Education, wants to spend another $43 million.

I do not necessarily have a problem with him spending $43 million. In fact, I was asking him today to spend some money. He said: No, no, no. We have a budgetary process, we have requests for hundreds of million of dollars, and we will put that request for these people being paid the lowest wages in the public sector wage bill in this Province, we will put their request along with the rest of them. We do not have any money. We have a budget process. Well, Mr. Chairman, never mind the budget process, they do not need a budget process, they have this here, Bill 27. Bill 27, Supplementary Supply, $43 million, and the minister has not said in this House where he is spending one single cent of it. Yet they come to this House and ask us to pass it. I do not why they bother, Mr. Chairman. They did not bother last spring when they got special warrants of $70 million. It is a very interesting figure.

I heard the Member for Waterford Valley giving a blow by blow explanation of what happened last March, a blow by blow daily account of what happened last March, over $70 million that they spent without any authorization.

MR. E. BYRNE: While this House was open?

MR. HARRIS: While this House was open. I was almost as outraged as the Member for Waterford Valley when I heard him speak.

Now they come here. I don't know why. I don't know what respect they have for this House. They did not bother in the spring. Now they come in and they do not even tell us what they are going to spend it for. The very least that you can say for them is that at least they are getting legislative authority. At least they are not breaking the law.

How are they being held accountable, Mr. Chairman, for the expenditure of this money? They are seeking authorization here in this House today to spend $70 million of public money without telling us where it is going. That is what we are faced with from this government.

I see the Minister of Treasury Board nodding her head, maybe at something else, but she should be shaking her head in awe at the arrogance of the Minister of Finance to present a request for $70 million after he, on December 4th, told this House that everything was hunky-dory. I don't think he used the phrase hunky-dory, but if you listen to the straight talk of the Minister of Finance on December 4, the supporter of the Minister of Health and Community Services, who came into this House with a straight face and said we were on budget, we were on target, our revenue and expenditure forecasts were in keeping with the budget, our revenues were not slipping - and then he came in to spend an additional $70 million. They haven't yet given this House any information as to where this money is to be spent.

I think what we have here is a "Be it resolved...". There is a resolution to be submitted: "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses ...". Well, we haven't been told what these certain additional expenses are, Mr. Chairman, and we can hardly be expected to support a measure from this government that fails to disclose that.

The level of arrogance that this government is taking on, Mr. Chairman, is growing, its lack of concern and accountability. Maybe it is because they are leaderless over there. They have a new Premier but the Premier does not seem to be able to keep this crowd in line. They come here looking for $70 million. He is not installed in office three weeks, Mr. Chairman, and they are in here looking for $70 million with no explanation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, will you get to the bottom of this?

MR. HARRIS: Well, the Member for Cape St. Francis may well get to the bottom of it, you never know. We may well get to the bottom of it. I would say, if we get to the bottom of this barrel, Mr. Chairman, we will find a lot of slippery articles; a lot of slippery articles at the bottom of this barrel.

The Auditor General just revealed that the same, or probably even a greater leave of arrogance, was used last spring while the House was in session.

MR. J. BYRNE: We tabled a report on special warrants today, the same day that she is talking about special warrants again.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Cape St. Francis points out, and correctly so, that they issued a report today, the Public Accounts Committee, dealing with $88 million in special warrants in 1997-1998.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, by leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Of the $88 million in special warrants issued in 1997-1998, $30 million was issued without any urgent requirement for the funding. Again, this was given out to three major departments, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation and the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, without coming to this House, Mr. Chairman, and getting proper authority. In the opinion of the Auditor General these expenditures were contrary to the act and therefore illegal.

The Financial Administration Act is the legislation that requires government, before it spends money, to come to this House unless there is an urgent and pressing need. Madam Chair - I see you are taking the Chair - when the House is in session, the provision for Supplementary Supply,
such as we are going through today, is what ought to be used.

When they are using it, it is incumbent upon the government to identify why it is they have these additional expenditures, and what it is that requires them to spend, in the case of the Department of Health and Community Services, an additional $43 million. Why can they come here looking for $43 million, for whatever it is they are going to spend on health care, without taking any measures to address the shameful way in which home care workers are treated in this Province by way of salary, the lowest paid home care workers in the country. There are 3,500 of them in this Province who are receiving less than $6 an hour as a result of this government's policies.

The minister today tried to defend the fact that this group of workers receive less than $6 an hour, and tried to claim that the government had nothing to do with it. Well, I was here and so was he, when the Southern Shore home care workers were on strike. They were not a private agency. They were a community organization that was there to deliver home care services to the Southern Shore. They were organized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, and they sought to improve their wages and working conditions and ended up on strike.

Day after day after day in this House, the minister responsible claimed that government had nothing to do with the dispute, claimed that government was not involved in that dispute and that this was a private matter between the home care workers and the Southern Shore home care association; the most blatant disinformation campaign you had ever heard. There was no difference between the methodology of funding of the home care workers in the Southern Shore than there was in funding Licensed Practical Nurses and care givers in the Hoyles-Escasoni Complex or in any of the homes around the Province that government finances and negotiates directly through Treasury Board for hospitals, for health care institutions, for homes providing exactly the same kind of care as is provided in people's homes by the home care workers. Yet, day after day this government claimed to have nothing to do with it.

Then, to make things worse, they came in and brought in legislation to make sure that home care workers could not effectively organize collectively to improve their wages and working conditions by declaring that the person in receipt of the care was actually the employer; because a number of cases were before the labour relations board and the courts which were about to determine responsibility for the wages and working conditions and the government did not want to take responsibility for the very low wages they were paying, effectively marginalizing a whole group of women in the home care industry.

That is on the plate of this government and the responsibility of this government. If the Minister of Health and Community Services can sneak in a request for $43 million without explanation here today, to the Minister of Finance's bill, he can certainly provide a solution for the home care workers because we have outstanding problems that need to be dealt with.

If the Minister of Health and Community Services does not respond to this demand, then he is failing his responsibility to this Legislature and to the people of this Province, and in particular to the 3,500 home care workers who are, as a result of his inaction, still suffering from the lowest wages in the country for this particular activity.

Madam Chair, I have gone over my time, I know my friends on the other side of the House were indulging me with leave, but I see they are getting a little bit anxious that I clue up and make room for somebody else to speak.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that this legislation, without detailed explanation, without a convincing argument as to why we can, a week after the Minister of Finance tells us everything is on target, on budget, he wants another $70 million, it is pretty clear that this legislation cannot be supported.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Come on, Minister, really! She has the audacity and the face to put a piece of legislation in the House asking us to approve $70 million, when the same day as she puts in on the table, the Auditor General tells her she broke the Financial Administration Act. That is what she is asking us to do. Really! The very same day that we debate this piece of legislation in the House of Assembly, the Auditor General tables her report. In her report, the section that deals with special warrants says exactly that in every case, of all the $70 million, 100 per cent of it breached the Financial Administration Act. It is pretty clear, she does not know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Minister, if you know it then you willfully broke the act, which is even a greater crime, I say to the people in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If you say you know it, then it is even a greater crime that you broke it.

We sat in this Legislature last spring. The Financial Administration Act demands of you, as minister, that if a special warrant is passed at the Cabinet table - the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - it must be tabled within three days in this Legislature. That is what it says, within three days. Did we see any of that? No.

Just now, when I said she did not know the act, she said: Oh yeah, right!

Well, if you know the act then you willfully and knowingly broke the Financial Administration Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right? So, you haven't read the Auditor General's report. Would you mind? I have a copy there, I say to my colleague? Let me read it for the minister.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is the same book everyone has, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains.

Let me get to the section. The minister says she was in complete compliance. Special warrants, where is it here? I just read it about an hour ago. What page is it on? Here it is.

Special Warrants, 3.4. Minister, you said just now that you were in complete compliance. Let me read the Auditor General's report for you. "The Financial Administration Act also requires that each Minute of Council authorizing a special warrant quote the special reasons for doing so, and a certified copy of the Minute of Council and the special warrant has to be tabled in the House of Assembly. In the case of a special warrant issued under subsection (2) while the Legislature is in session..." - which we were, it is important to note; which we all were in session of that $70 million - "...tabling is required within 3 days of the issue of the special warrant."

Minister, I would gladly give you leave if you would answer the question. Did you table it within three days? Because I was here. The former Premier wasn't very much, and some other members weren't very much, but I was here. I did not see you table it. There is no record in Hansard. There is no tabling at the Clerk's table. So, how do you say you were in compliance? How do you say that your department and you, as President of Treasury Board, were in compliance with the Financial Administration Act?

Now we are here today and she has the audacity, the gall, on the same day, on the very same day that the Auditor General tables her report in this House, the Minister and President of Treasury Board stands up, in a cute little address to the Legislature which took about sixty seconds or less - as if this piece of legislation was meaningless, that it had nothing to do at all with the ongoing trappings and administration of government - that is the type of government that we have right here today. Talk about accountability.

Two years ago - I was interested to read, for example, Marble Mountain. The Auditor General had a look at Marble Mountain. Twenty-seven million dollars was spent. There was a huge debate in this House and in Question Period about why we were building condominiums. The former Minister of Finance, now the Minister of Mines and Energy, under direct questioning from myself and others on this side of the House, talked about the need to improve infrastructure and accommodations in the area; talked about how the people in the area in the hotel and hospitality industry supported this initiative. That is what he said -

MR. J. BYRNE: A market study.

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, yes, I am getting to that.

- that all of the information conducted for the department - now, why it was under his administration is a story I will get to in a second. Why Marble Mountain is not under the Department of Tourism's administration is a story I will get to in a second. He stood in this Legislature - he is not here now; I hope he is here tomorrow - and he told us that all of the market studies government had issued and commanded suggested it should be done.

We asked in the Legislature at that time, could he please table the market studies. No, because it would be sensitive. Sound familiar? We could not because it involved a commercial enterprise; that government could not do it because it involved information related to other private owners and that is why they could not and would not table the market studies.

Now we know why they did not table it, because there were no market studies; that willfully they went ahead again - purposely, I say today. The only conclusion I can draw today is that the former Minister of Finance and the present Minister of Mines and Energy, in a purposeful way, misled this House when questions were asked of them about Marble Mountain. That is the only conclusion I can draw from the statements made right here.

We went ahead, and today what happened? What is happening with Marble Mountain today, and the condominiums? Government is competing with the private sector in the hotel and hospitality industry. Forget about what we said for a minute. The people in the area said categorically that they were afraid this may happen, that they supported the initiative of building condominiums simply because government had given assurance that it would not in any way, shape or form compete with them, Madam Chair. That is what they said. Now what is happening? We are competing with the private sector.

I asked the minister in this House, how many of those units were pre-sold? He left the impression clearly that most of them were, that the vast majority had interested buyers. We find out today, in the Report of the Auditor General, that when they were built they had no expressions of interest, except for a couple, that there were none pre-sold.

That was back in 1995. That was under the former - former, former Premier's Administration. Now the question remains: Why is Marble Mountain, which is described as a jewel of the tourism industry in the Province, under the direction -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I said in 1994, for the record. I do not know what you want to do with it, but we said we would follow the master plan put in place by volunteers and the people in the industry who were controlling Marble Mountain. That is what we said. We supported the people in Corner Brook. That is what we did.

Why is Marble Mountain, the jewel of the tourism industry on the West Coast, not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Tourism? Why is it not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Tourism? Why is it under the jurisdiction of the Member for Humber West? Can anyone tell me today? Has it changed? Let me ask the Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Minister, why is that? Why is the Department of Tourism not responsible for the management and operation of Marble Mountain?

I say to the minister, it is not under - up until, I believe, at the Cabinet meeting.... It is just as well for me to tell the story now, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, go for it.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will tell the story.

The Minister of Tourism took before Cabinet a paper, a Cabinet paper, that would see Marble Mountain follow the master plan that was outlined - that was in 1996 - that would see the ultimate privatization of that facility with guarantees given to the Crown and to the people of the Province for their assets. It involved a lease of Marble Mountain's facilities.

At that Cabinet meeting, when she presented that - I believe it was in the fall of 1996 or early spring of 1997, I would have to be corrected on the exact timing but it was one of those dates, it was in that time frame - the Minister of Finance put the place up at the Cabinet meeting. Following that Cabinet meeting was when the Minster of Finance, the Member for Humber West, assumed control of Marble Mountain, and that was when it started to go downhill, so to speak.

We have seen today how much money was spent without any reports, without any market studies. The only conclusion you can draw, I say again, is that he purposely misled the people in this House. There is no other conclusion that I can draw from what I read in the Auditor General's report on Marble Mountain today; no other conclusion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not talking about you, boy.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, we are not talking about him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? Are you saying the expenditure of $27 million of public money without any proper consultation or market studies is a joke? Is that what you are treating it as? Is that what the Member for Topsail is saying?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: A point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Just to put my case, Madam Chairperson. I had asked the hon. Leader of the Opposition to whom he was referring and the response I got from the other side was a big laugh. So I just said: well, is it a joke, what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is talking about, or who is it that he is referring to?

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chairperson, who we are referring to is the former Minister of Finance who, in my view, based upon what it is in the Auditor General's report on Marble Mountain and based upon what he said in this House two years ago, purposely misled the people of this Province and the members of this House. That is what I am saying and that is who I am saying it about. This is the same minister now who aspires to be the leader of this Province and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a track record like that. Have you seen what was said about Marble Mountain? Would you like me to read some of it for you, I say to the Member for Topsail?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, read it. You might as well.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is unbelievable, what is contained in this on Marble Mountain. Unbelievable!

Let me get to it, where it talks about no studies done. Here it is, Conclusions, on page 129. Now remember everything that is in this section of the report was asked in this Legislature two-and-a-half years ago, three years ago, about Marble Mountain. Every aspect of what the Auditor General says right here, we attempted to explore but were not given the information when the minister and the former Premier had the obligation to tell us. They went as far as to say that we are against tourism on the West Coast. That is the type of spin and nonsense and hype that people in this Province have finally caught onto.

Here is what it says, I say to the member: "The 31 condominiums were constructed and marketed in 1998 yet no new marketing surveys were conducted subsequent to 1994." Completely contrary to the public statements of the former Minister of Finance. "The market survey carried out in 1994 indicated that people preferred renting over purchasing." Now, was that the plan ultimately? When this government went to the local hospitality industry and hotel owners and B & B's and small operators and sought their support, and they got it because they said they were selling condominiums, that all of the condominiums would be sold, and on the basis of all those condominiums being sold, that those people would attract more people, and when more people came to visit those people they would have to stay in their establishments. That is what they said, but they weren't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly right.

Listen to this. All of the members over there, with the exception of the Member for Trinity North, and the members of this Cabinet, their fingerprints are on this statement. "In 1996, only 11 of the condominiums had potential buyers and in 1998 none - and I repeat - "none of the units were pre-sold when the construction was started." We asked in this Legislature, before the sod was turned, how many of those were sold. Assurances were given again, but when construction started in the fall of 1998 not one was sold. Yet this government proceeded to do that anyway.

It goes on to say - just listen to this, this is extraordinary. The entire Cabinet has a lot to share in this. "Although the market information indicated that there were very few potential buyers for the condominiums, the 31 condominiums were built in 1998 and marketed initially as sales units only. Twenty-five of the units are furnished or partially furnished while the remaining 6 are unfurnished." The short and long of Marble Mountain. The story is finally being told.

History will judge this side of the Legislature as being accountable and being competent. They will judge that side of the Legislature, on this issue, as purposely and wilfully misleading the people of this House and the people of the Province. When it came to Marble Mountain, under direct questioning on a number of days in this House-

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I didn't want to do it, but I think it is incumbent on all hon. members to use the language that is appropriate to the House. I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a couple of occasions - I don't think he would want to do it either, but just wanted to be reminded maybe. I think he said, referring to the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, that he purposely mislead the House. Now to say that a member mislead the House is okay, but to say that somebody wilfully and purposely mislead the House is unparliamentary. I do not think the hon. member would want that to stand. He could say the government. He said the Cabinet and that is fine, but not the individual.

MR. E. BYRNE: To that point of order, Madam Chair.

The only thing I can say is that I certainly was not aware that my language was unparliamentary. I have said on a number of occasions, since speaking on this bill, that the only conclusion that could be drawn, or that I could draw, based upon the statements that were made in this House by ministers and former premiers and others on government policy, that somebody purposely mislead. I do not believe that is unparliamentary, I say to the Government House Leader. That context is the context in which I pursued my line of questioning.

MR. LUSH: If I may: I thought that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was referring to an individual specifically and if he did not, I certainly apology. What he says is correct, to refer to Cabinet, government, but I thought he referred to a specific individual.

MR. E. BYRNE: Based upon statements coming from a variety of members - am I back on....

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I do not want to get too much into this because we have a couple of more days for this, but I want to say to the minister on her piece of legislation: Minister, it is unacceptable that you bring a bill before this House when you were not in compliance with the Financial Administration Act, when the Financial Administration Act was broke. On the day that you bring it in, the Auditor General tells you that you did not comply with it and that you circumvented, in some ways and in many ways, if not in all ways, the reason why members in this House sit in this House. That is my final say on it and we will have more to say on it in the coming days.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2000, the sum of $70,838,500."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2, carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2000 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 27)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, Motion 1, Bill 4.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am pleased to introduce into the House today Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act. This bill will increase the payroll exemption threshold for employers in this Province from $150,000 to $337,500 for 2000, and to $400,000 in 2001.

Also, the tax rate for the renewable resource sector will increase from 1 per cent to 1.75 per cent for the year 2000, and 2 per cent in 2001. Both of these measures were announced in the 2000 provincial Budget.

I have to say, after being in the business community myself in all my working years, this is something that the business sector has wanted for a long time. What it says today is that this government is providing good governance because we are able to announce this very important feature for our business community.

Madam Chairperson, in the fall of 1999, the Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology released a report on its review of the provincial tax regime. Their report recommended that the Province introduce the above payroll tax measures. Today, with this bill, we will be enacting the council's recommendations.

I also want to point out that this is the third year in a row that government has increased the exemption threshold. From 1998 to 2001, the exemption threshold will have increased from $100,000 to $400,000.

I do not know if any of the hon. members opposite had a chance to look at the financial review that was just published by the Department of Finance. I had a copy of it here earlier today. What it has outlined is that, for the third year in a row, the economic indicators for this Province are excellent. That says a lot: that this government is providing good government in all areas. We are providing a balanced budget, and we are dealing with requests that come over the desk of government in a fair manner.

The significant increase to the exemption threshold since 1998 has had a very positive impact on business in this Province. Over 1,800 businesses have been dropped from the tax roll as a result of the exemption threshold increases.

I want to say to this House today that the acting Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries stood in his place today and reported that the fisheries exports created $1 billion in revenues in this Province. I do not know if members in this House realize it, but a second producer, which probably most of us do not realize here, is Information Technology. Information Technology, last year in this Province, created $600 million in revenues, a very close second to fisheries and aquaculture. We are gaining in great bounds in our IT sector here in this Province.

Approximately 94 per cent of all businesses in this Province will no longer pay tax. The government will continue with its commitment to eliminate the payroll tax over time; however, this must now be done in a prudent and fiscally responsible manner.

We are answering a request that has been heard by this government from businesses all over the Province. This is a positive step for businesses in this Province and I want to speak, I guess, directly for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

From January to October, I had the privilege of actually being at ribbon cuttings, or new openings, of over sixteen new businesses in Grand Falls-Windsor alone. Many of these new businesses will now be beneficiaries of this new announcement by government. I am sure, as members opposite stand, they will tell us, too, of successes in their particular district by bringing forward this new piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister has asked for members to stand and tell about some initiatives. I am still interested in hearing the minister tell me why she, and her department, broke the law and broke the Financial Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In talking about this piece of legislation, did she give an explanation of that?

I know you have probably had some good teachers, Minister, but there is still time for some redemption. Are you going to tell us why you, and your department, broke the Financial Administration Act? Yes or no?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

On Bill 27, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, she never even responded. The President of Treasury Board did not even respond to all the commentary on this side of the House, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

The payroll tax, that is what this bill is all about. I find it more than passing strange that during the 1999 election, in our policy manual, the PC policy manual, we were calling for the reduction and the elimination of the payroll tax. When this payroll tax was first brought in by the Liberal Administration, by the Liberal government, it was a regressive tax. It was then, and it still is. It was a tax on jobs, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

When it was first put in place, if you had a small business and you had a payroll of $100,000, you had to pay a tax because you were paying out salaries, because you were creating jobs, and creating spin-off jobs. That wasn't bad enough. No, I stand to be corrected. It was $300,000 when it was first introduced, on the total payroll. Then, what did this Administration do? That wasn't bad enough; they brought it down, the total of the payroll, to $100,000. If you had a payroll of $100,000 you had to pay taxes on it. It was shameful, it was regressive, and it cost hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what happened. The payroll tax cost thousands of jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We called on it. We said many times in this House since 1993, since I have been here, that it should be wiped out, but in the 1999 election, when we had it in our policy manual, the Premier of the day, the former Minister of Finance, members on that side of the House, ridiculed our policy and said it could not be done. Three months after, they talked about changing the policy and reducing it the minister said, I think, there are some 1,800 businesses dropped from the payroll tax. Rightly so. They should not be on it in the first place. It should not have been implemented in the first place. A Liberal Administration; here they are, the same situation. They do it over and over again. For example, health care cuts in the Province; they cut it to the bone and then they give back a few shekels and try to make a big deal of what they are giving to the people of the Province.

The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs cut the municipal grants, the MOGs, cut the road components and then brought back - gave them a few bucks and are trying to make a big deal of giving them a few dollars, but they did not say they cut the Municipal Operating Grants from $60 million-something now down to $25 million. They do not talk about that, over the past ten years.

We have the payroll tax here now today, introducing this bill - the President of Treasury Board, who would not respond to the commentary on the previous Bill 27; when we talked about the special warrants on this side of the House and the abuse that this administration uses when it comes to special warrants. Special warrants have been used by that government to create an unrealistic bottom line in the budget in the past few years.

We have the Auditor General - and it is strange, as I said earlier on a previous bill, that today, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I presented the Report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts (inaudible) the Treasury Board, special warrants. In her last report the Auditor General had concerns that the government was circumventing and not properly using special warrants. In actual fact, she made a statement that they could be used, and I agree, to either create a deficit or if you did not use them you could have an actual surplus. This administration is good at that - the special warrants.

Today we have a bill that went through this House, passed, but refused by this side of course. Everyone on this side of the House said no to it but members on that side of the House, of course agreed to it, like the lemmings going over the cliff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Like lemmings going over the cliff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shrews, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, the lemmings, right? I am right. Just follow the leader, bang, bang, right over. Now they are going to follow the biggest lemming of them all of course, the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Health, he is a lemming. He is going to lead them right on over; boom, to the bottom in the near future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Gone, I say to the Minister of Health. We are talking millions of dollars here.

Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act. The minister, when she was on her feet - here is another situation, they are talking about dropping businesses from the payroll tax yet, they are going to increase the rate charged on the other end.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that is what is going on. They are going to increase the rate they are charging. She talks about -

AN HON. MEMBER: He went over the hill. He cannot hear you.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is down in a hollow now. He going for the big drop. He is in the big slump now. He is heading for the big drop in a little while down the road.

The minister talked about - this is how they try to spin stuff out; this is the third year that the exemption threshold has been increased. What we are saying is that it should not have been there in the first place. There should have been no payroll tax, I say to the President of Treasury Board. If she had any gall, if she had any sense she would resign.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a Point of Order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I am really interested in hearing what my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, has to say. He has just indicated that this is how they try to spin; so I am looking for a clarification. Is this the same sort of analogy they use, that they were sued for $100 but only got it down to $50, so therefore they saved us $50 million? Is that the same sort of spin and nonsense they are getting on with, I ask the member?

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is the exact same situation.

MR. E. BYRNE: There was no point of order but a good point.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. I have to agree with the Chair, it was not a point of order but it was a good point. That is what they do all the time. You know, that is what they are doing.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Saying one thing, yes, that is it. It has been in the courts, for example. I mean, we know Trans City, $40 million. We have $10 million here, $5 million there, $2 million there but that adds up to $100 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: You must be sick of counting.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I cannot keep up with it, the court cases. I have a list of them here. I have a few there. Here we are, I can get onto this -

MR. E. BYRNE: Jack, there are more coming.

MR. J. BYRNE: And more coming; the cottage hospital contracts, Atlantic Leasing, Cabot 500, and Andy Wells. What else is here? Parsons, Eagan, Tors Cove Excavation, Druken, Dalton. Who else is here? Jacques Fontaine, pay equity, Malcolm Rowe, Clyde Wells, Whitbourne Youth Corrections; it goes on and on. No mere human can keep track but I am doing a good job of it.

Again, the exemption threshold has increased.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am just getting started.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

CHAIR: By leave.

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

There was an interesting point made by the President of Treasury Board who, I believe, represents Grand Falls-Windsor. Is that the name of the district, Grand Falls-Windsor?

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: What is it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. J. BYRNE: Grand Falls-Buchans, sorry. I stand to be corrected.

She said there have been sixteen new businesses created there in the past while, okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what she said but I can guarantee you one thing, she can take no credit for it, I say to the Minister of Health, would-be Premier of the Province, maybe somewhere down the road if he does not go over the cliff first with the lemmings.

MR. E. BYRNE: Jack, he will not be there long enough to get his EI.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right, he will not be there long enough to get his EI.

What I find so peculiar about this is if the President of Treasury Board was so great and had such a great affect in creating these new businesses, why would she - I am sounding like the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne - be so adamant in supporting pulling people from St. John's region, in government, a certain proportion of 278 people who are supposed to go all over God's creation in Newfoundland and Labrador for decentralization? If she can create sixteen new businesses why is she trying to split up families in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why is she supporting that? Why is the Minister of Health, maybe the next Premier, supporting that? Why is the Minister of Environment supporting the like of that? More importantly, why is the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs supporting it, who is representing a St. John's seat here? Why is the Member for Mount Pearl supporting it? It is not because it is right and proper. It is morally wrong. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are supporting this move, pulling people out of St. John's and splitting up families.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did not know about it, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: They did not know it because it was written on the back of a napkin at some golf course somewhere and they came back - it was probably in the media before they even knew about it.

They all knew the Minister of Tourism was going up and challenging St. John's, Loyola Hearn. They knew he was gone. They figured that a few more would not be back. I doubt very much if the Minister of Fisheries is going to be back here. If he does not win the leadership, I doubt if he will be back. I doubt that the Minister of Finance will be back if he does not win the leadership in the spring sitting, and others. So why they are so hush on all this, of course, and why they are showing support is that they are hopefuls. They are hopeful that they will be going into the positions in the Cabinet chair. That is what is going on here; taking care of business, taking care of themselves. There is no way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Working overtime.

MR. J. BYRNE: Working overtime.

The Minister of Health is over there keeping all kinds of notes up there. Hopefully he will get on his feet. He is different though. Did you notice how different he is this sitting of the House, the Minister of Health? Can you remember when he was sitting on the other side over there, anytime we were up here saying anything controversial he was on his feet. Yap, yap, like the little crackie. He was like the little crackie following the car, but he is more reserved now. I do not know why. He is trying to make the impression that he is Premier or Premier material. What happens when the people of the Province finds out it is nothing but burlap?


MR. T. OSBORNE: If Efford wins he is going to call an election right away (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If the former Minister of Fisheries wins and he calls an election right away, it is going to be, at least - how many are over there now, twenty-eight? How many are on that side, twenty-eight?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty; twenty-nine besides the Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, whatever. We can expect probably five or six back in the House of Assembly.

Bill 4, the payroll tax, is a bill - they should be bringing in a piece of legislation to wipe this out altogether but what they are doing here is dropping businesses from it. When they are raising the amount from 1.75 per cent to 2 per cent they are still going to pull in the same amounts of revenue into their coffers. They are basically going to put taxes on jobs again. As a matter of fact, from my memory, there are businesses now that are going to be taxed which were not taxed before. It may appear that they are doing something for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but in actual fact, they are probably doing more damage, I say to the members on the other side of the House. Hopefully, when the bill is brought to the vote, they will finally have some sense and for once in their lives - for once, since I have been here - say: yes, they are right. The members on the other side of the House are right and they will vote against it, I say to the members.

I will tell you a story. Before I got into politics I had a small private business on the go. We were always over the $100,000 payroll so we had to pay it. I used to have conversations with small business people, small businesses, or whatever you want to refer to them as, and oftentimes if their payroll was up to $95,000, and they were going to hire someone, they would say no because it would put them over $100,000. If you had a rather larger business, when it was $300,000 and ten people at $30,000 a year, or 20 people at $15,000 a year, whatever the case may be, they would not go over that. In actual fact, it was a deterrent to job creation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what was going on here and still going on.

Where is Mr. Efford today, I would like to know?

I have had enough commentary on this. I have spoken on the payroll tax so often in this House of Assembly. It is finally good to see that the Liberal government are taking another one of the Tory policies and implementing it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act To Amend the Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." (Bill 4)

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of a charge related to the provision of certain health and post-secondary education taxes."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and, in particular, Bills 27 and 4.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, maybe we could do the bills separately.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, separately.

MR. LUSH: We could do Bill 27 first, the supply bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 and Bill 4.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2000 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 27)

On motion, Bill 27 read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of charge related to the provision of certain health and post-secondary education taxes."

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act," carried. (Bill 4)

On motion, Bill 4 read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day we introduced an amendment to the Liquor Control Act. I think it was Bill No. 47. I wonder if hon. members would concede that we give that bill first reading. I think we had agreement that we would give Bill No. 47, A Bill To Amend The Liquor Control Act, first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, No. 2," carried. (Bill 47)

On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the attention of the Opposition House Leader. The appropriate minister is not here to do second reading of Bill 9. We are searching for him. In his absence, would the hon. members agree to go to Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 37?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Trustee Act". (Bill 37)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a couple of comments on the amendment to the Trustee Act, and just to say that the current act lists specified investments in which trustees are permitted to invest, where the trust agreement does not provide specific instructions. These permitted investments are restrictive and outdated and do not include many types of modern investments, such as mutual funds and segregated funds. Modern trustee legislation usually provides for prudent investor guidelines whereby the trustees are accountable for investing trust funds on a prudent basis. This provides for more investment opportunities for trust funds and more opportunities for investors to increase returns.

Mr. Speaker, the prudent investor guideline makes the trustee accountable to invest trust funds in a prudent manner, taking into account risk and rate of return. A number of other provinces have already adopted the prudent investor guidelines in their trustee legislation. This Province has also adopted it in the Credit Union Act and therefore we need to take action to ensure that the Trustee Act is amended for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, this action, which will be welcomed by those involved in providing trust services, including the estates division of the Supreme Court, is one of many steps we are taking to harmonize and modernize our legislation and regulations.
The specific changes to this Bill - Clause 1 of the bill would be repealed and substituted with section 3 of the Trustee Act to replace the rules permitting investments, only in listed types of property with a prudent investor standard.

Clause 2: where sections 4 and 5 will be repealed and dealt with permitted investments. References to sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act would be removed.

Clause 4 of the Bill would amend section 9 of the Act to make reference to the report of an appraiser of property in place of a surveyor.

Mr. Speaker, these few changes to the Trustee Act will also have a huge bearing on the Prepaid Funerals Act which was approved by this House in the spring and will be enacted when we get the regulations finished in a couple of weeks.

The amendments we make to this act, Mr. Speaker, will enhance the opportunities of the Prepaid Funerals Act to ensure that we have prudent investments in all of the different acts that apply to this.

So, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to see the minister up on his feet today trying to tell us that he is bringing a bill to the House of Assembly that will have more to do with imprudent spending. It is a good way to spend our money according to what the minister just said, if I heard him correctly.

After listening today to the President of Treasury Board up looking for $70 million that they spent last year, that they were not allowed to spend, I say that crowd on that side of the House could take a good lesson on prudent spending.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With those great comments from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, I will conclude second reading on this particular bill. If there are any questions, we can bring them up in committee.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Trustee Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.. (Bill 37)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 9, Bill 43.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43 entitled, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act," be now read a second time

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act." (Bill 43)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

These provisions arise for two reasons. One is the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that gave to same sex couples the rights that couples enjoy under the - I should say opposite sex couples.

I think it is fairly straightforward. It requires and assigns to same sex couples the rights of existing married couples, we would call them, I guess, under current terminology, so that if they are together for a period of two years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: - or if they cohabit for a period of one year but have a child with that relationship, either adoptive or biological, then, of course, they acquire the rights and obligations of couples that now enjoy and have to come to terms with under the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, same sex couples would now, as I said, have the same obligations and rights. These would include things such as providing for each other in the event of disillusion of their relationship, sharing of assets, providing of maintenance and so on.

I am sure that the House is very much aware of this. Members opposite have had a chance to read the clauses, endorse it, and I therefore recommend it for second reading.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is really not new legislation. In fact, this was legislation that was basically promised, I do believe, during the last session of the House. It is in response to, as the minister has indicated, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and is consistent with legislation that is found federally and in many other provincial jurisdictions in the country.

It essentially, as the minister has indicated, adds to the definition of spouse to include the word partner so that provisions and benefits which may be found in the Family Law Act legislation of this Province may be afforded to and extended to not only spouses but to those individuals who come under the definition of partners.

It is interesting to note as well that the same benefits are found in documentation such as separation agreements and cohabitation agreements; so essentially the wording and the spirit of the Family Law Act is extended to those individuals who may not otherwise be defined as spouses but wish to classify themselves as partners.

As I have indicated, it is not new legislation. It is legislation that is in response to what the highest court of the land has indicated, and that is similar and concurrent with other jurisdictions in our country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to spend a few minutes at second reading on An Act to Amend The Family Law Act. This legislation does a couple of things. As the previous speaker has said, it brings the legislation into line with the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision concerning support for those in relationships of the same sex, but I think it also recognizes the provisions for - it deals principally with support legislation and permits, as well, people in same sex relationships to have cohabitation agreements and to adopt, in part, provisions of the Family Law Act as it relates to their relationship.

I think it does go a long way to meet the requests of the community who are particularly interested in this. The gays and lesbians organization were particularly interested in legislation being brought forward as soon as possible. This provision actually does that, so I just want to express my support for the legislation.

I do have one query about this because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the consequences of cohabiting are with respect to the law in this Province. A lot of heterosexual couples who live together believe that, after a certain period of time, issues of the matrimonial property act comes into force. That, of course, is not the case. It is not the case under the current law, whether it be in relation to the matrimonial home or the family property regime that comes into force by operation of law after a certain number of months or years of cohabitation. There is a lot of misunderstanding about that in the Province. It has been suggested that in fact it should be brought in consistent not only with people's beliefs but also consistent with the same reasoning that the first matrimonial property act was brought in, in 1980, and that was to recognize that relationships of long standing ought to be based on principles of equality unless the partners agree to the contrary through an opting-out agreement. This legislation does not go that far with respect to either heterosexual or same sex couples, so we do not see any advancing along those lines.

There is one somewhat inconsistent provision, and this is something that was not in the previous legislation. I draw members' attention to the provision, clause 5, where section 39(10) of the act is repealed. "The obligation to provide support for a spouse or partner exists without regard to the conduct of either spouse or partner, but the court may in determining the amount of support have regard to a course of conduct that is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship."

I have not received a proper explanation for that, but it is a matter that perhaps deserves to be discussed further in Committee. It seems, at least at first glance, to be a new application of the law of support that would apply to both same sex and heterosexual couples. I did not have the impression that we were doing anything in this act that would take away from existing rights of spouses under the current matrimonial regime, under the current matrimonial or Family Law Act, so I would want to question that further in Committee and I would hope that the Minister of Justice will be present and able to answer those questions for us.

I just want to be on record as saying that we support the amendments to the Family Law Act. It does bring it into keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada decision but also, and more importantly, into keeping with the circumstances that many find themselves in, in same sex relationships, without proper provision in our law for support and for allowing them to adopt provisions of the Family Law Act to recognize that these relations, too, constitute a family to those people who are participating in those relationships and establishing families under those relationships.

I do support the legislation and I would like to commend its acceptance to the House. In doing so, I adjourn debate.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: That is not the way we wanted it. We wanted to pass the other two. I wonder if hon. members want to stop the clock at 5:30 p.m. and just do the other two.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes, okay, we will stop the clock at 5:30 p.m. and finish the other two.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 43.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: I understand there is an agreement to stop the clock if we do not get finished at 5:30 p.m.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 11, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act." (Bill 45)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be very long on this one. This is a simple amendment to the Prepaid Funeral Services Act, which is in direct response to the Member for Ferryland who last year wanted clarification in terms of who is in and who is out of the act. This identifies that churches or places of worship or non-profit organizations operating cemeteries are out of this act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple amendment and I move second reading.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will make a few quick comments on Bill 45. I will say to the minister that it is the same piece of legislation we brought forward last year, and at that time you turned it down and rejected it. We have it here; you rejected it. Once again you are adopting Tory policies. It is starting to get sickening on this side, to tell you the truth.

This piece of legislation, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, is dead on and we have no problem with it. This is a piece of legislation that should be have been in place before. The only reason that we have it in place today is because you have to deal with a couple of situations in the Province that have some up lately. So you are being reactive instead of proactive, which we were on this side of the House when we brought this forward last year to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the minister, in Committee, explaining in the House how he managed to get compliance with legislation that was not even proclaimed in the last month, but he has given me his private explanation which is quite interesting.

We support the amendment here, but I hope that this really only refers to the provision or the advanced sale of cemetery plots and does not purport to allow non-profit organizations to get into the larger business of providing funeral services in general.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not part of a larger plot, I hope.

MR. HARRIS: I hope it is not part of a larger plot by the minister or anyone else to get involved in services that they would not ordinarily provide.

It certainly makes sense to exclude religious organizations or non-profit community groups which provide for the upkeep of a cemetery to accept advance sales of cemetery plots without having to go through this process. I would hope that there would not be any problems in that regard. Obviously, if the cemetery plot is allocated, in some ways I suppose it does not really matter what happens to the money as long as the allocation is upheld by the organization or the church that goes through the process.

We support the legislation and appreciate the fact that certain exemptions have to be made.

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all of that general debate, I will close second reading on this bill, the Prepaid Funeral Services Act.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 45)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members again for their cooperation and their diligence. The items that we agreed to today, we will complete those tomorrow and finish a couple of other second readings that are presently on the Order Paper. Also, we will deal with the new bill that was introduced today, Bill 47.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.