The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

I rise to bring members' attention to the passing of one of Newfoundland and Labrador's premier school administrators, Mr. Victor May, Principal of Elwood Primary School, Deer Lake, formerly of Belleoram, and a long-time resident of Pasadena.

Victor died as he lived - helping others. On Sunday, December 1, just one day short of his fifty-second birthday, after having cleared the snow from his own driveway and that of two of his neighbours, Victor died while cleaning the snow from yet another neighbour's driveway.

As evidence of the high regard that Victor was held by his peers, last year Victor was named Principal of the Year by the Newfoundland and Labrador School Administrators Council for his outstanding character and his dedication to his students. In 1994, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Foundation named him recipient of the Samuel R. Laycock Memorial Award for his outstanding service to education by fostering co-operation between parents and teachers.

Victor was a director of the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, President of the Pasadena Winter Carnival Committee, a member of the Crown of the Valley Economic Development Board, a member of the Humber Valley Square Dancers, the Pasadena Lions Club, and a faithful lay reader with St. David of Wales Anglican Church in Pasadena.

Victor was liked and respected by all who knew him. His quick wit and ready smile were his trademarks. At the funeral service on Wednesday past, students accompanied by their parents, former students, retired teachers and teaching colleagues were much in evidence as over 600 people crowded into the small church to pay their last respects.

On Friday past, students and parents packed the Elwood School auditorium to overflowing as they held a Memorial Service in Victor's memory; a service which ended with teachers giving each student a lollipop in commemoration of Victor's practice of giving each student a lollipop on their birthdays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending deepest sympathies to Victor's wife, Sadie, and his daughter, Melissa, on the passing of one of life's true gentlemen.

Thank you.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Oxford Dictionary states the definition of a "milestone" as "a significant event or stage in a life". Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, December 8, 2002, Mrs. Katherine Mahoney of St. Bride's experienced such a milestone. Yesterday Mrs. Katie, as she is well known to all of us, turned ninety-nine years of age.

Mrs. Katie Mahoney was born in St. Bride's on December 8, 1903, to James and Mary Bridget Young. During her long life, Mrs. Katie was a dedicated member of the church community, always helping out at garden parties and fall fairs. Mrs. Katie was a lady of faith, walking to church in all types of weather, up to just a few years ago. Mrs. Katie is a true example that hard work does not harm you. She was always busy and active around her home and her community.

Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, at the age of ninety-eight, Mrs. Mahoney underwent major surgery and returned home in just a few days.

As a young boy growing up in St. Bride's, Mrs. Katie was my next door neighbour and I was always amazed at her energy and enthusiasm for life.

Just think for a moment; Mrs. Katie lived through World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, the Great Depression, and the days when Newfoundland was still a country unto itself. The world has changed so much in the last century and Mrs. Katie has lived to see it all.

She is, at present, the oldest citizen in the Cape Shore area. She still resides in her home in St. Bride's and, while not as active as in previous years, still manages to get up and around each day.

Mrs. Katie had several visitors to her home yesterday who brought best wishes, and I call on all members of this hon. House to join with me in wishing happy ninety-ninth birthday to a wonderful lady, Mrs. Katherine Mahoney of St. Bride's. As we used to sing at our own birthday parties years ago, "We hope she lives to be 100."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the Canadian Coast Guard Search and Rescue 103 Squadron in Gander for recently completing the longest offshore rescue mission in the history of the Cormorant Helicopter in Canada.

The single rotor helicopter, piloted by Mayor Gilbert Thibault, flew a round trip of about 1,650 kilometres out to sea to rescue a seriously injured crew member from the Berge Nord, a Norwegian Bulk Carrier off the East Coast.

Mr. Speaker, the mission, which started at 11:00 a.m. on December 4, ended at 8:00 p.m. that night, nine hours after it left Gander. Under normal conditions, the Cormorant can fly about 1,100 kilometres without refueling, but the crew fought stormy winds and icy conditions to refuel at the Hibernia Platform and then travelled north 400 kilometres to the ship. They then returned to Hibernia to refuel and then travelled another 350 kilometres back to St. John's to the Health Sciences Centre.

Mr. Speaker, three Cormorant helicopters have replaced the old double rotor Labrador Helicopters for Search and Rescue and, with this acquisition, it is obvious from this rescue that these new machines will greatly improve search and rescue efforts.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House I congratulate Major Thibault and the rest of his crew including Captain Bob Belanger, Search and Rescue Technicians Sargent Emilio de Chantal and Master Corporal Ron Kuhn and flight Engineer Master Corporal Rob Vidido for their efforts in ensuring the safe return of this Norwegian crew member and to all Search and Rescue Personnel for their work in protecting our citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main- Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the graduating class of the WISE program, Women Interested in Successful Employment, for the Trinity-Conception Bay area. This is the sixteenth graduating class of this program and I was privileged to be part of the graduation exercises at Fong's Motel in Carbonear on Friday, November 29.

This twelve week exploration program is designed to enable women to overcome barriers that hold them back in the workforce. The thirteen women who participated in this most recent offering proudly accepted their certificates, expressing the sentiments of appreciation to their mentors and facilitators, Ms Carolyn Burke, Ms Karen Peddle and Ms Gloria Ford. For twelve weeks this group explored not only skills required for successful employment but the importance of building up a network of support resources and agencies.

At the celebration, representatives from different government departments of HRDC and HR&E, spoke of their support for this very effective program, but it was the words of one of the graduates, the valedictorian, Ms Verena Cole of Harbour Grace which says it all, I quote,

"Speaking personally, I have been unemployed for quite some time and have been lacking the courage and resources to change it. WISE has provided me with all of this and more. I am now a woman with a career plan and the determination to expand my horizons. Our women should know that if they find themselves in a dead-end situation, there is help out there. It is here at WISE!"

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of this House will join with me in offering congratulations to the 16^th Graduating Class of the Trinity-Conception WISE program and will agree their theme that, "The Sky Is The Limit" is a most appropriate one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Karen Pottle of St. John's who has been the recipient of a major national fashion award in October, 2002. The owner of Exploits Design Inc., Ms Pottle was one of twenty-five Canadian designers who received awards in Toronto from the Matinee Fashion Foundation.

The Matinee Fashion Foundation was established in 1992 to provide financial support to talented Canadian fashion designers. Ms Pottle plans to use the award to hire two consultants to help her achieve greater efficiencies in her production business.

Ms Pottle's business, Exploits Design Inc., uses traditional materials such as oiled cotton or oilskin to produce a range of outerwear. Exploits products are sold in Boston, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Seattle. Ms Pottle was also recently commissioned to redesign the product lines for Grenfell Handicrafts in St. Anthony, Atlantic Canada's oldest and one of its most recognized brand name garment product producers in the region.

Ms Pottle is a very talented entrepreneur who has demonstrated her skills as a clothing designer and manufacturer by winning this particular award four times and each time she has used it to improve an aspect of her business.

I would like to ask the members of this House to join me in congratulating Ms Pottle and recognizing the contribution of her work to the economic development of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I rise today to inform hon. members that I was recently presented with Memorial University of Newfoundland's 2002 President's Report. The report, which highlights key achievements at the university in 2001-02, focuses on three areas of importance to the university: vision, action and innovation.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to Memorial University and to all post-secondary institutions in this Province. More importantly, we are committed to our post-secondary students and to providing them with high quality, accessible and affordable post-secondary education opportunities.

For this reason, we have enabled Memorial University to reduce its tuition rates by 10 per cent for the past two consecutive years, making the current tuition rate the lowest in Atlantic Canada and the second lowest in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, our new Provincial Student Loan Program has been redesigned to better meet the needs of our students. We sought advice from students, parents and educators and have implemented changes to further reducing the debt of our graduates. We will shortly be starting an evaluation of our new program being that we are now close to having one term in place. We have also increased funding for student and graduate employment programs to assist students in funding their education.

Our recent CareerSearch 2002 document tells us that our investment is paying off. Since 1996, we have seen significant improvements in graduate outcomes across the board. In particular, Mr. Speaker, this year's results show a higher percentage of graduates had obtained full-time employment in the year following their graduation from post-secondary institutions, and in particular, employment here in our Province. Memorial University is a part of this success.

Maclean's magazine ranked Memorial as one of the top five comprehensive universities in the country -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Noting they have a significant amount of research activity and a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including professional degrees.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial University's vision is to enable their students to acquire a first-rate, well-rounded education, to provide its employees with an excellent working environment, and to serve the needs of communities in this Province and around the world.

Examples of key actions towards that vision in 2001-02 included a new multi-million dollar partnership with Inco Limited to create the Inco Innovation Centre on the St. John's campus. As well as other partnerships with universities and industry in Atlantic Canada to undertake research on petroleum, marine and health issues with the support of the Atlantic Innovation Fund.

The university created new student residences at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College campus in Corner Brook and opened a new marine station near Gros Morne National Park.

Memorial renovated its European campus at Harlow, England, and introduced new programs bridging North America and Europe. And it created a comprehensive recreation complex, including a new Field House on the St. John's campus.

Mr. Speaker, this government is proud of the high quality education offered at Memorial University and the success rate of its graduates. I am pleased to provide hon. members today with a copy of the 2002 president's report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of her statement before we came to the House.

While we certainly look forward, also, to Memorial University of Newfoundland's 2002 president's report, we, on this side of the House, would like to see the audit for 2001-2002 at Memorial University of Newfoundland. We have been looking for that, Mr. Speaker, and it is time, I say to the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: - it is time to allow the Auditor General to have a look at the books of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

I really believed, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that this government, with its openness and its transparency, was going to bring in legislation that would allow us to do that, but we are still waiting for that legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the minister today and, sure, there are some good things happening with post-secondary education in this Province, but, as I touched on last week in this House, it is amazing that 51 per cent - and it is important - 51 per cent of first-time applicants who were added to the social assistance caseloads of this Province in 2001 were people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine; 51 per cent.

I ask the minister: Are there some stats that will show us how many of these young people, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine, are on social assistance today because of the overwhelming debt loads that they have had to carry, Mr. Speaker, in this Province.

We heard the minister talk, Mr. Speaker, about tuition cuts and we, too, are pleased to see any help that can be given to post-secondary education. At the same time as we are giving help on one hand, Mr. Speaker, we are taking on the other hand, by the fees that are being put in place at Memorial University in relation to the Field House, as the minister just touched on. We cannot give on the one hand and take with the other, I say, Mr. Speaker. We have to be fair across the board, and that is why we need to have a look at the books of Memorial University.

We have to address the concerns that rural students face, Mr. Speaker, versus urban students. We all know that tuition fees across the board are equal, but we have a situation, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, if I could just finish for a moment?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: We have a situation in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, where we have students who have transportation costs, we have students who have housing costs here in St. Johns's, and we have to ask ourselves: In 2002, is it right and proper for any government to be boasting when we have students going to food banks? I don't think so.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Memorial University is an institution of which all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be proud. We have seen recognition by Maclean's magazine, which is one measure, not a perfect one, of recognition of the status of the university. I think we are all pleased to see that happen.

The minister mentions two 10 per cent tuition reductions in the last two years. She didn't mention the fact that the government committed to a 25 per cent reduction in three years. So, another 5 per cent should be forthcoming, which we hope will take place in the next year.

There are still, however, problems of accessibility, and although changes have been made to the student loan program, there is still a lost generation, I call it, of students in the 1990s whose average cost of a university education tripled from about $8,000 in 1989 or 1990 to about $25,000 for a four-year education by the late 1990s. That is something that has yet to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. What has happened is, many of these graduates have been forced to leave the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: That has to be addressed and fixed, Mr. Speaker, so we can have full accessibility to the programs of this university.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the hon. the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, it would now appear that the entire country believes that there was, in fact, a deal to develop the Lower Churchill. It started with the Premier. Three weeks ago, the Premier said a deal was imminent. The Hydro Board was even asked to review the terms of the deal and vote on it. Peter Penashue said there was a deal on land claims. Representatives from the Government of Quebec said there was a deal, and now the Premier of Quebec says that his province and our Province reached a deal to develop the Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier finally concur with practically everybody who has had anything to do with these negotiations, and admit that he had negotiated an agreement to develop the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I might point out that I spoke with my counterpart, Premier Landry, on Friday, before the weekend, and he clarified again, quite clearly, what his position is, and that is that the discussions that we have had to date, he is satisfied with the offer that is on the table from the point of view of the Province of Quebec.

I indicated to him that obviously we are not completely satisfied with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador and, in fact, the talks, Mr. Speaker - we looked at the calendar and the schedule - probably will not resume until after Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, on Friday, not only confirmed that they had reached an agreement to develop the Lower Churchill, but he said that the two sides had, what he called, a good offer, a good contract, and good negotiations.

A contract, Mr. Speaker, implies -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: - that a deal was done with Quebec; and, if I can use a little french, a fait accompli so to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier now saying that Premier Landry did not tell the truth to the Quebec media last week? Is that what he is saying, that the Premier of Quebec is not telling the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am at a little bit of a loss as to what the Leader of the Opposition really wants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me make the statement again: I am at a little bit of a loss as to what the Leader of the Opposition really wants. The Leader of the Opposition wants for there to not be a deal. I inform him and the House of Assembly that there is no deal, that the negotiations are not concluded, and that they likely will not resume again until after Christmas, so I do not know what the point of his questions is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this House on November 18, the Premier said: Maybe even this week. On November 18, he also said: Before the end of the week. On November 20, he said: Sooner rather than later. On November 24, he said: So the business case, you know, is very close to being finished.

It sounds like a deal to me, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated yesterday that he believes that all the fuss in recent weeks may actually strengthen his bargaining position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, thank you very much, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that he, in fact, negotiated the people of Newfoundland and Labrador into a weak bargaining position? And now, as a result of the Opposition and the Board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro questioning his judgement, he is now looking for a better deal, in fact?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition may want to live in the past. We prefer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: I know Howdy Doody. I know all about it.

Mr. Speaker, they may want to live in the past -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They may very well want to live in the past and talk about the last thirty years and so on in the Province. We are trying to look to the future and we are still negotiating. The position of this government is that, unless and until we sign something and present it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we are always negotiating in the best interest of the people of the Province. That is the circumstance that we have described to the people of the Province in the last month, that is still the circumstance today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier acknowledge, based on his own statements, that two former chairmen of Hydro are correct in saying that the deal he negotiated was a bad deal and a sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador, while in the words of Premier Landry of Quebec, it was a good offer, it was a good contract and a blessing from heaven for Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is up to his old tactic again of taking a comment out of context. The Premier of Quebec, when he used the idea and the analogy of a blessing from heaven, was talking about clean energy available in North America as a result of obligations under the Kyoto Accord. He said that, in fact, any clean energy that comes on stream, such as the 2,000 megawatts from Labrador, would be a blessing from heaven. Not that it was not necessarily a blessing from heaven for Quebec, but a blessing from heaven for North America, for the world, for the continent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Now, the Opposition does not like to hear that. They would rather not have it in context and have it explained because they like to cast the innuendo; but, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: There has been no deal negotiated. The negotiations are still continuing and we, unlike the Opposition, are trying to have a successful negotiation for Newfoundland and Labrador, not another thirty-nine years of doing nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, under the deal that Premier Landry says is a contract and our Premier says does not exist, Hydro Quebec will be the sole lender for the Lower Churchill project. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance confirm that the base interest rate charged by Quebec to finance the deal, with our own money, will be in the range of 8 per cent to 9 per cent, and we will pay Hydro Quebec $10 billion or more in interest charges over the life of the agreement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What I can confirm to the Opposition and to all the people of the Province is that when government, if and when reaches a deal, all the details will be made available to all the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another question for the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the last two borrowings on record by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have been at interest rates of 6.4 per cent and 4.61 per cent for an average cost of 5.5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is simply this: If each percentage point on the interest rate for a $4 billion loan from Quebec, amortized over forty-five years cost $1 billion, why would we borrow from Quebec at 3 per cent more which costs the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an additional $3 billion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, why didn't you pick 16 per cent or 20 per cent or 5 per cent? I will repeat again, when and if we reach a deal with Quebec we will make all of the details known. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that rates vary for any deal, if and when there is one, whether it is long-term financing or short-term financing. It depends on your stability in the market. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I look forward over the coming days to talking about our own loan bill and the rates of borrowing we can get in the long-term markets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry today.

Over the last several weeks we have seen a $250,000 ad campaign in this Province to promote: Good Things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. Other economic indicators tell us otherwise. For example, tax revenues in the last decade, since this government came to power, have grown by only one-half of 1 per cent, which is why this government has become so dependent on one-time measures.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is simply this: Can he confirm that a consulting company has been recently hired to study rural development associations and their place in developing the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador? If he can confirm that, can he also confirm that in so doing that what he is actually saying is that this government's economic performance and it's stimulation of the economy over the past several decades, over the past several years, have been simply an abysmal failure?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly check. I am not aware of any consulting firms that have been hired in the recent past for that particular purpose. I am sure officials in the department from time to time hire consultants for one purpose or another.

The hon. Opposition House Leader made reference to the issue of zone boards, and it is an issue that I personally took up with zone boards in this Province some time ago. The major issue we have right now, and we would solicit the support of the Opposition in this regard, is that all federally/provincially funded agreements will be coming to an end on March 31, 2003. That is a matter to be concerned about and that is a real matter when it comes to the efficient workings of zone boards which give us the grassroots ideas to develop this Province. That is where we need help from people. We are not interested in doing anything to hurt rural Newfoundland. We are doing things to try to help rural Newfoundland. If that takes a consultant to give us any guidance, so be it, we will certainly do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The consultant has sent information out to zonal boards where it says that they were looking at the options for the roles they could play in the future to promote rural development. That is what this consultant is doing on behalf of the government and the process. This is the same government that cut rural development associations out of the picture in 1994.

Mr. Speaker, this government has said that good things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier this question: If he believes that great things and good things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, is that why he has left a part-time minister as minister for the past several months when other people have been waiting - and, more importantly - the most senior economic department that people depend on has been left in the part-time hands of another minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Opposition House Leader speaking out in his usual role, in protecting the Leader of the Opposition and the Official Opposition, because in two questions, Mr. Speaker, maybe he is giving us insights into some of their platform that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to talk about. He has talked about the fact that we haven't increased our taxes. I guess they are going to. They must be going to increase taxes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because they are talking about how little the tax breaks - or the tax increases.

They talked about a policy of the Liberal government. We replaced development associations by Regional Economic Development Boards, now called zonal boards. He talked about that as if it is a bad thing, so I guess they are going to reinstate all the development associations, the thirty or forty or fifty of them that were around, some of which are still doing really good work, and now asking about the appointment of a ministry.

His colleague to his right, the Energy critic, who was speaking on behalf of the group one day when this particular point was made, as an acting minister, talked about the fact that the Cabinet is already too big. The Cabinet of the Liberals is already way too big, and if we ever form the government we will make it much smaller.

Now we do know they are going to have a ministry of small business, because that was announced during small business week. I guess they are going to have a premier and a minister of small business, and nothing else -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - because we have not heard anything else, so we will see what happens next.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that department is the senior economic department that drives the economy, sets the strategy for the economy. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier has missed is that what we are talking about is you doing the right thing, Premier, and appointing a full-time minister to guardianship over the economy. That is what we are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question, Mr. Speaker: Does he agree with Christine Snow, the Executive Director of the Capital Alliance Zonal Board, when she says that: big ideas or ideas that they have are not getting through because of delayed decision making, unresolved decisions for over twelve months, no source of funding, no guarantee of funding, not being able to plan?

Wouldn't you agree, Premier, that this is a result of having a part-time set of hands on the most important Cabinet position for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with two things for sure. One is that, because of the lack of experience over there in terms of ever having been in a government, except for one member, that they do not know the difference between an acting minister and part-time. There is nothing part-time about the job that this man is doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He is full time.

Mr. Speaker, we do know an inconsistency and a contradiction when we see it, because the Opposition House Leader, when he was the leader of that party, and presented a Blue Book in 1999, said: We will cut out all grants and loans to small businesses in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That was their position in 1999.

Now you have the current leader who says: If I am elected Premier, it will be me and a small business minister and that will be the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Premier that he read the Blue Book again, because he is after adopting half our policies from the last election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in May of 1999, government paid $930,000 for the Ahelaid which is now called Hull 100, purchased from Estonia. The department estimated $2.9 million to purchase and refit this used vessel. That figure is now $7 million and growing, Mr. Speaker, three-and-one-half years after, and the Hull 100 is still not in use.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that almost ten years after officials of Works, Services and Transportation recommended a vessel replacement policy, there is no real or legitimate vessel replacement policy adopted by this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I guess since 1993 it has been recognized in this Province that we needed a vessel replacement program and, of course, since that time we have taken measures to improve our fleet and to add to our fleet. That great ship that he just mentioned is one we just purchased, and it is now being done in the great District of Trinity North. This particular vessel right now is being done in Clarenville in terms of the dockyard at Clarenville. I was there the other day and everybody is quite happy that there is a lot of work on the go in the dockyard in Clarenville. It is a very busy spot and people are very, very pleased with it.

I like to put things in context for those members. I have been in this House for fourteen years and I expect to be back here again for another fourteen, so don't get (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I want to put things in context.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: In the early 1990s, this government was faced with the close down of a major industry in this Province. At the time that report was presented to my department in 1993, we had a close down of a major industry in this Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who closed it down?

MR. BARRETT: John Crosbie closed it down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: I can continue on and explain why we - but he has a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I say, Mr. Speaker, he did a good job of not answering the question.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation explain why government bought the Ahelaid, the Hull 100, when they knew that it was recommended by government officials that her sister ship be purchased for parts? Wasn't this a clue that the Hull 100 was a rustbucket, unfit for Canadian waters, which would cost millions to upgrade to Canadian standards?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The only rustbucket that exists is in the mind of my hon. critic. He has been using rustbuckets for a long, long time. Our fleet is a very, very efficient fleet. If you want to listen to the raves from Bell Island right now, they are quite pleased with their ferry operation. Most of the people around this Province are quite pleased with the operation of our ferries within the Province, and have no great complaints. As a matter of fact, we only had four or five shutdowns of our ferry service in this Province in this fiscal year - four breakdowns - which is phenomenal in terms of the number of hours that these vessels operate.

I want to put things in context. What I was saying before, we had a close down of a major industry in Newfoundland and Labrador at the time that people were recommending that we go out and buy new ships, but we had to make decisions in terms of how we were going to spend our money in this Province.

When this government took office, there was no such thing as home care for our senior citizens, and this government has committed $60 million a year for home care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: So, you have to put that in context. We could not go out and buy all new cars, but we did buy a used one and we are getting the services out of the used one just as good as we are getting out of the new ones.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is missing the boat on this one. The cost for the Hull 100 now is almost triple what they had projected.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at least attempt to answer this one? Will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation explain why the Hull 100 was purchased before the actual cost of upgrading in order to get Canadian standards approval was determined? Why did this government not require Canadian government inspectors to inspect this vessel before purchasing, to determine realistic costs of upgrading, when this could have easily been done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to members opposite, will you relax and let the minister hear the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I will just say, did the minister hear the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No. Okay, I will ask it again. Why did the government not require Canadian government inspectors to inspect this vessel before purchasing, to determine realistic costs of upgrading, when this could have easily been done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: All the necessary inspections were done on this vessel. We knew the type of vessel we were buying when we bought it. The hon. member, if he is against the great work that is being done in Trinity North now, I would like for the hon. Member for Trinity North to tell me to get up and say so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns health care funding in this country.

The per capita system of health care funding introduced by Paul Martin resulted in 90 per cent of transfers for health care in the past three years going to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. So, 90 per cent of the increases went to those three provinces.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Romanow Commission, we now have a recommendation for needs based funding. The minister was at a conference of health care ministers this last Thursday and Friday. Can he tell us whether he got a commitment from other health care ministers across the country to support this needs based funding and away from the per capita funding?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, as the hon. member opposite has referenced, I did have occasion on Friday to meet with my counterparts from across the country to discuss some of the particulars flowing from the Romanow Report. One of the key things in the report, as the hon. member has referenced, and it is certainly something that is of encouragement to us, is that Mr. Romanow, in his recommendations, did recommend that future funding to the various jurisdictions, to the provinces and the territories, be done on a needs basis, as opposed to strictly per capita. As the hon. member pointed out, and all hon. members of this House know, on the strictly per capita basis, the smaller jurisdictions, including Newfoundland and Labrador, do not fare well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on every billion dollars of transfer the amount that would come to this Province would be some $17 million. So, obviously, on a per capita basis, the kinds of monies that we would need, a strictly per capita would not do it.

In fact, there was some discussion, but our meetings on Friday, as was reported in the media, did not spend a great deal of time talking about the money aspect of it. The issue was raised by myself and other representatives from some of the smaller jurisdictions, because, obviously, it is a matter of concern to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: The only way that we will really get a fair deal in terms of that, is if, in fact, they do follow up on the recommendation that it be done on a needs basis. To this point in time, it is something that is being actively pursued.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: The Ministers of Finance will be meeting shortly and the Premiers will be meeting later on in January.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal New Democratic Party has called on the Government of Canada to adopt this approach, this recommendation, of the Romanow Commission report. If the minister did not get the support of his other counterparts across the country, how does he and his government expect to get the Government of Canada to act on this recommendation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the hon. member, if he were listening to my answer, I did not say that we didn't get the support. In fact, what I reported was what exactly happened at the meetings, that, in fact, there was some discussion with regard to that issue and beyond that. I would point out, as well, that we did have occasion to raise the issue of equalization. In fact, going back to an earlier first ministers' meeting there was a commitment by all first ministers in the country that, in fact, we need to review the whole issue of equalization.

Quite frankly, in terms of health care and health care funding, beyond the Romanow Report and the recommendations that are there, as good as they are in terms of the needs based funding, I think we all recognize in this House and, indeed, in this country that it is time to review the whole business of equalization. The only way that jurisdictions like Newfoundland and other smaller jurisdictions in this country will get a fair shake is if it is recognized that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - it is time to revisit and review the whole equalization formula.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, time for one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: My question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

Employment in the Province for November compared with a year ago decreased by 2,400 jobs. Our unemployment rate stands at 17.1 per cent for an increase of 2.4 per cent, compared to the same month a year ago. Seasonally adjusted, the unemployment rate stands at 18.5 per cent. The minister and others in government continue to paint a rosy picture of GDP growth and to give a growing economic forecast.

I ask the minister: Why has your government failed so many of our unemployed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and what measures are you taking to assure that employment opportunities in this Province more accurately reflect your economic forecast or the GDP growth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite interesting to note that for twenty-two straight months we led the country, I guess, in employment growth but not one word from the Opposition. The good news about this year is that we still have a growth of 1.4 per cent over last year. This year is also a record in terms of the number of people participating in the workforce, some 57.8 per cent; the highest on record for this Province. So the future does look good and we are very positive about what is going to happen next year with the projects, with White Rose starting, Voisey's Bay getting up in full swing. Unlike members opposite, who wanted to stop Voisey's Bay, we want to move this economy forward and have the policies in place that are working.

Mr. Speaker, we have had quite a bit of success when you look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: We have had 1.4 per cent growth in the number of people employed in this Province this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 31)

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn on tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. and an extension of that motion, that it not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I also move Motions 5 and 6 on the Order Paper, which again, pursuant to our own Standing Order, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today; and Motion 6 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Orders, that the House not adjourn at 10 p.m. today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is about to put the motion. Members ought to know the rules. In our own Standing Orders there ought not to be any interruptions when the Chair is putting a motion to the House.

All those in favour of Motion 5, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

All those in favour of Motion 6, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS some of the Big Game Management Areas, particularly Area 41 Sheffield Lake in 2001, had opening dates of mid-October, but the dates have been changed to September 14, 2002; and

WHEREAS the majority of big game hunters would prefer a later opening and closing date; and

WHEREAS earlier opening dates can lead to loss of meat due to spoilage from high ambient temperatures; and

WHEREAS the possibility of losing a crippled animal increases due to high foliage growth existing in September; and

WHEREAS there is objection to hunters from harvesters of wild berries during the peak harvesting month of September; and

WHEREAS the revenue generated from hunters would not be negatively affected due to an October opening date;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the opening date for the Big Game Hunting Season in Area 41, Sheffield Lake, to commence the second Saturday in October and close the second weekend of January of the following year, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people who like hunting in the wild areas of Newfoundland and Labrador are tempted early in the year to go hunting because they have been waiting all year, waiting to make their plans, get out in the outdoors and enjoy their hunting privileges that they have. So that temptation is there early on in the season. The first week of the season many people will get ready and plan their holidays to get out into the bush to do that hunting. Most people, too, like to wait until later on in the year when the temperatures get colder so that when they do go hunting, if they happen to be successful, then they can take their time to hang their meat and do a little bit of rabbit hunting or whatever, or do a little work around the cabin or wherever they are, and not have to rush home.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of the parks in Central Newfoundland people come from all over the Province to avail of the hunting season, particularly around Area 41. If they come from the East Coast to Central to hunt, and happen to get their animal on the first day, then, because of the high temperatures, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to finish up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the government needs to take a serious look at that to prevent the wastage of our very valuable resource with our big game in the Province. So, I urge the department of wildlife to take a closer look at this and make sure that this resource is protected so that it can be there for many years for our people to enjoy at a time in the year when they want to go.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been ungraded since it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult.

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a section of road that I have referred to here almost on a daily basis, where the people from Birchy Cove, Upper, Middle, Lower, Amherst Cove, Kings Cove, Duntara, Keels, and those particular areas are asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the remaining three kilometres of roadway from Birchy Cove to Bonavista. There has been a feeble attempt this past four or five years to upgrade and pave this section of road. It started out to be five kilometres. Four years ago, the first phase of upgrading and reconstructing that particular piece of five kilometre road was started. Today, we are still standing here - I am still standing here - in this Assembly asking that the three kilometres be upgraded and paved to provide the people in the area with a decent road to drive over.

School children in the area have staged a demonstration. Mr. Speaker, residents in the area have staged a demonstration. They have acted very responsibly. They have not gone out and blocked the road. They had some pamphlets made up - some information leaflets - where traffic would stop and they would pass out their concerns and ask people to support them. They have been responsible here in asking that this particular roadway be upgraded and paved, and brought up to today's conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the people using this particular road pay the same amount of money to buy their driver's licence. They pay the same amount of money and the same taxes on gasoline when they refuel their machines. They pay the same taxes and the same costs of going and registering their vehicles, as other people in the Province. All they are asking is that they be provided with a decent road to drive their vehicles over so that they might get to or from their place of business, to and from the hospital, to and from services that are offered in the Town of Bonavista.

This is one of the larger thoroughfares, or one of the only thoroughfares, that leads into this particular community. Mr. Speaker, the traffic there is such that it would certainly warrant a decent road. Bonavista and that particular area are growing areas.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: There are new houses going up there every year, new businesses, in spite of the downturn in the economy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: All they are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is a decent road to drive over, and have it brought up to the year 2002 standards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of the Bide Arm, Roddickton and Englee area. I will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the incinerator is located very close to the highway, making it an eyesore to the area just before entering our community; and

WHEREAS since it is located in a valley, the same valley that our community is located in, the prevailing winds cause smoke and fumes from the incinerator to be funneled directly over our community; and

FURTHERMORE if there is no wind, the smoke just hangs in the air over the community; and

WHEREAS there is a little stream that flows by the base of the incinerator in a dump site, the stream then continues to flow out the valley into a larger stream that flows into the harbour. The water should be tested in this stream to see if there are contaminants present because our people catch and eat fish from this water; and

WHEREAS we believe that all kinds of garbage is being burned at this site, including materials that can contain toxic substances and harmful chemicals; fast-growing cancers are reported to be caused by contaminates from these kinds of waste products. In our community alone, within the time frame that the incinerator has been in operation, there have been at least eight people die of fast-growing cancers;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately remove the incinerator before more health and environmental problems are realized.

As in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition certainly says the vast majority of it. The incinerator is in the valley that Bide Arm is situated in. It is very close to the main highway that you must travel on to get to Bide Arm, Englee, and back towards Roddickton. It is, as I have said on other occasions here in this House, approximately one kilometre from the town. It is downwind from the prevailing winds in the area, and there is a small stream that runs very close by the incinerator and runs out through town. Certainly, while it mentions the contamination of the stream, there are major concerns from some of the people in the community who have wells in close proximity to this small stream, that there could be potential contamination of their drinking water. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, with the town's water supply not being very far from the incinerator, there are major concerns from the people there in the community about possible effects on their water supply, the community water supply, from smoke and residue and what have you blowing from the incinerator: dioxins, furans and what have you, blowing over into the water supply.

Mr. Speaker, these people recognize that the Province is in the process of bringing in a new waste management program, and they recognize that this could be a very long endeavour, the final implementation of a new waste management strategy and a change to regional dump sites and regional waste disposal sites, and a change towards more recycling and those types of things. They recognize all of this, but what they are really concerned about is that this will happen in five to ten years time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, just a few seconds to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, they are very concerned about the impact on their health. As I have said, there have been quite a number of people in this community who have been diagnosed with fast-growing cancers in recent times. While we do not know exactly what causes it, they would like to have an answer. They would like to have a study done to see if it is caused by the incinerator, and, in as expeditious manner as possible, they would like to see the incinerator closed down in the short term and replaced with some other form of waste disposal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of fifty-eight retired teachers here in the Province, Mr. Speaker. A part of the petition reads:

We, the undersigned, all members of the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador present at BGM 2002, wish to register our support for and agreement with the recommendations made within the brief on the urgent need for increases to the pensions of this Province's retired teachers. We respectfully request that you give this matter your immediate attention, for the retired teacher constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador are facing a very real financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I also received several letters from retired teachers in my own district. Just to read a copy, if I could, this letter was sent to Premier Grimes.

Dear Mr. Grimes, I am a retired teacher who is proud of my years of dedicated service to the children of this Province. Unfortunately, my retiring years are overshadowed by the inadequacy of my current pension. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador last provided an increase in retired teachers' pensions in 1989. The increasing cost of living since that time places me in a precarious financial situation.

My purpose in writing to you is to request that government once again grant annual ad hoc increases to teachers' pensions. I respectfully ask that this be made a priority. I appreciate your anticipated assistance and I recognize your acknowledgment that this request is both just and timely.

Mr. Speaker, I have received several of these letter from retired teachers throughout my own district, and I am sure all members of the House have received those as they put forward what they believe to be a very genuine concern in relation to their pensions, Mr. Speaker. I pay particular notice to the second paragraph where it says: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador last provided an increase in retired teachers' pensions in 1989.

I ask the question: Who was in power in this Province in 1989? These retired teachers have put many, many years of service into our schools and our education system, and they have put many, many hours into extracurricular activities that are a part of it, and I guess have given us the opportunity over the years to give our children an all-round Class A education. I think it is time we took a serious look at this. These people have been in a bind since 1989. The people in my district whom I have talked to, the retired teachers in my district, deserve to have government take a very serious look at this situation, and look at what they can do in providing the proper compensation for these people.

I think we have a situation here where these people have played a very vital role, an important role, in the lives of our children, and I think it is time we take a serious look at least in sitting down at the table and seeing what justice can come to the situation in which the retired teachers find themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, continuation of the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased today to stand and speak to An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

I think this piece of legislation is one in a number of social program policy changes that, I think, reflect a new direction for government; one that I am very proud to be associated with, a history, going back, looking at the human rights legislation that was brought in in the late 1990s, early 2000. As well as the Child Care Services Act which looked at how we provide care to children in their homes, how we assist child care providers to do that and recognizing that having a well-educated workforce to take care of our children is a very important component of valuing children as our resource for the future.

Also, I would like to speak a little bit about the Adoptions Act, which I think, as well, has been one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the country. It has been touted by many groups that are very interested; many governments that are interested in legislation, that this piece of legislation allows people from all walks of life now to have a different view and one that has been listened to with respect to adoption. It respects the child. It respects the adult, and it respects current adoptive families so that they do not have to live in fear where they are not able or, at this point in time, able, at least, to go forward and identify their birth child.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to talk about the nurse practitioner act, which, as well, I think is a very important piece of legislation in the social agenda, which allows rural communities, but also, more importantly, urban communities that often have difficulty finding a full complement of practitioners, the ability to use nurse practitioners. I think all of these pieces are very important and very reflective of a social agenda which, I think, is very progressive Liberal legislation and one that I am very proud to be associated with.

This particular piece of legislation around renewing an income support program is one that is long overdue. As we know, the current legislation is over twenty-five years old. It was written at a time when people had a different view of social assistance, when people had a different view of why the program was in place. We all know this is a program of last resort, but it is also a program that affects people at any point in their lives. We know, in fact, today, Mr. Speaker, that many people, although they are working, from time to time during the year will often have to avail of social assistance to help them get through a very difficult time. Maybe there is a work stoppage or maybe there are some unnecessary - not unnecessary, but situations that have not been able to be recognized in time to plan for. It is a program that is there to help people when they most need it and I think, again, a number of very progressive changes have been made over the last number of years to assist people.

In addition to providing the 7 per cent increase that was provided for all of the public sector a while back, again, reflective of some of the changes that are required. I think the very fact that in this new legislation there is an option for renewing social assistance rates at an automatic period of time, I think that is very important.

I think one of the most important pieces of legislation, as a forerunner to this, is around the National Child Benefit that allows people now - whether they are receiving social assistance or whether they are working to continue to receive the National Child Benefit. I think this is very, very important because it works to enhance people's self-esteem to allow them to move off social assistance without the fear of losing a benefit associated with children's care through the National Child Benefit. As you know there are two components to this. There is a component that is associated with providing provincial funding for child care programs and services, and also there is the federal piece.

Our Province was one of the few, if not the only province, receiving the National Child Benefit that did not implement the clawback. In other words, allowed social assistance recipients to keep the portion of the provincial as well as the federal allocation. Originally, when this was put in place, the federal government provided the money on the condition that we would withdraw that money from social assistance clients and put it over into an area of our population whereby low-income workers could avail of these services. What we, as a government, proposed to do under that legislation was to, again, focus on low-income workers to assist them in whatever way we could. As well, we wanted to ensure that people currently receiving social assistance would not be penalized in any way because we recognize that, without a doubt, people do not choose social assistance. People are receiving social assistance because it is a program of last resort and because they are going through a difficult time, or a time of transition in their lives. It is a program that we believe is most important. Therefore, we wanted to recognize that in a new piece of legislation.

In this legislation I think it speaks to the intent of where we are in terms of social policy. This is one of the few pieces of legislation that has been written which has a preamble, and you will say: Well, what is the importance of a preamble? A preamble, in this particular case, sets out the intent and the philosophy of what is trying to be achieved with this piece of legislation. It talks about promoting self-reliance and well-being. It is not just a piece of legislation that identifies how much money you get regardless of what your situation is. It speaks to participating in community life and it talks about alleviating poverty as part of the social policy goals of this government - and ones, I think, we feel quite confident to stand by.

It also speaks to the delivery of income and support programs, the social assistance programs. This really is about showing the respect, the dignity and the privacy that every individual is entitled to, and that this program be delivered in an equitable, accessible, coordinated and fiscally responsible manner. In other words, while you take into consideration the individual needs of people you have to be fair in how you actually implement the program, that you have to be recognizing and always aware of the fact that there are individual differences. People's needs will vary, depending oftentimes on where they live, on the programs that they can access, and also the needs they have at a particular point in time.

I think the provision of a drug card is another good example, that while people move off social assistance and into the workforce they are able to sustain that drug card. That allows them, again, the self-reliance and the confidence oftentimes to move into the workforce and to be able to make the jump that gives them that hand-up to get them into a new form of life and perhaps move away from that program of last resort.

Another component of the preamble, which I also think is very important, is that it recognizes people encounter circumstances that affect their self-reliance and may require income support to assist them with meeting their basic needs. Any government is put in place to meet an individuals and a community's basic needs. This government reflects on that very policy in this new Bill 23, which allows people the dignity and recognizes that their own self-reliance may be impaired through no fault of their own. It is not about fixing blame. It is about fixing a solution and it is about providing opportunities. This piece of legislation, specifically, provides those kinds of opportunities by allowing employment to become something that now is a flexible option for people. Whereas before it was often a detriment, and perhaps too many walls were in place.

We recognize that people, generally speaking, prefer to move on on their own path; prefer not to avail of these programs. We recognize that there are people who will always need income support programs. Again, through no fault of their own but because of the situation they find themselves in. That program will always be there for people to avail of it as they need it.

Another part of the preamble which I think, again, speaks to the philosophy of where we are going is that people may benefit from a variety of supports and services to help develop the skills and abilities necessary to prepare for access and to keep employment. That is critical because employment is critical for people moving forward in their lives. We recognize again, it is a philosophy of providing a hand-up to people who need to move on, who need access to that job and giving them the confidence and the support they need oftentimes to do that. This legislation provides the parameters, not only in the preamble but in the many components because it is quite a detailed piece of legislation.

Again, it is not one that was sat in the back corners where a group of people got together and said: Now, this is what we want to do. This legislation is the culmination of many, many months of hard work. In fact, many years. I know the initial process began when I was the minister back in 1996 in the Department of - the then - Social Services. When we started the whole process of bringing together the Departments of Health and Community Services and the Department of Human Resources and Employment because philosophically we believed that it was more important to align the human resources, the employment, the job creation part with the social assistance programs because it was a natural fit, and also by moving all of the program areas under the Department of Health and Community Services.

It also recognizes that persons with disabilities face unique barriers to employment. Again, these policies were created through vigorous consultation over a number of years by people who have vested interests, by the community at large, by people with disabilities, by people who are mothers and sisters and brothers and fathers of people with disabilities, who spoke to the issues of what it is like day to day living. We recognize their concerns and their issues, and we believe in this legislation. We provided solid groundwork so that people definitely now have an advantage around the kinds of supports they have. We recognize, as was recognized the other day in this House of Assembly, that we still have a lot of work to do. We still have many things we can improve upon, but when you have a basis like this legislation I think it is quite easy to say that the footing is there and the groundwork is done to allow people to continue to move forward, regardless of whether they have disabilities or no disabilities.

I think perhaps most importantly, of all of the components of the preamble, speaks to the partnerships between the government, the people and the community groups, because over the last seven years - speaking from my former life, I know that it was often a very difficult environment to come in and to state your case and try to feel that you were working in a partnership with government. I can honestly say that this government, over the last number of years, has reached out to communities, to groups, to be much more inclusive of the kinds of policies that we want to put forward because they are not our policies, they are your policies. They are the polices of the people, and we believe the only way you can possibly put them forward is by going to the people for their input. This is not our piece of legislation. I would say to the people of the Province and to hon. colleagues, this is your piece of legislation. Again, that has been vetted through the people of the Province and developed by the people of the Province.

Also, I would have to acknowledge the very fine work of many individuals who are now in senior positions in the Department of Human Resources and Employment, and who have been working there for many years in various capacities. The current deputy minister, who has worked a number of years in the Department of Human Resources and Employment, previously in social services. He has done fine work and has been instrumental in bringing together the culmination of all of his consultative work and putting together what, I believe, is a very clear picture of what the people said. Are there opportunities for improvement? Absolutely. Again, I think that as the culture of the Province changes, as peoples needs change, I think this legislation still supports the groundwork for those changes to occur. We are open to making any necessary changes in the future that may be required based on a partnership, consultative method and approach so that we can continue to enhance and build upon legislation like this.

Mr. Speaker, without any further delay, I want to very firmly stand here today and support my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, in what I consider a very positive, a very open, a very consultative piece of legislation that is one I am very proud to be associated with and I urge all hon. members to support this piece of legislation.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to start off by saying I agree with the minister in his introduction. The highest measure of a society is how we treat our less fortunate. It is a very true statement and a very powerful statement. I think here today, being at my age and in very good health and what not, we do not think of ourselves in a very unfortunate situation because the world offers many possibilities. I think when we move around in society or we move around, it is, in that circumstance, hard to place ourselves in the position of someone who is less fortunate. I would like to think that whatever happens tomorrow I will have some value in society. I know I believe that I have some value. The thing is, sometimes we become - in circumstances we find our self-esteem, our value, as we see it, has gone down because of how society treats us. It has made us think that way of changing us as individuals.

There are so many things that are out of our control, such as accidents. The changes to put us in that circumstance. One of the things I think about is that we got up and talked a lot about soft tissue injuries which the insurance industry says they cannot afford. It was one of the things that was rather important. We went out there - and the industry surveyed the people and the government surveyed them and found that people want to be protected. They do not want to be left out in a situation where they could find themselves in an environment that they have no control over, and for no good reason. It was the reason insurance was ever so important, to have no loopholes there, to have complete protection, and the people who resided there, I think, had expressed that feeling, that I had completely agreed with.

One of the things also, outside of that, unfortunately finding ourselves in the position, is the size of the problem. When we go out there and look at the need for income support, in places like the District of St. Barbe, very rural areas, the size of the problem is a problem in itself. We cannot deal with it because the problem is so big. I think if we had the jobs out in rural Newfoundland and a small percentage were in need of income support, we wouldn't look at it the same way we do today.

When I was elected, the thing that people asked me at interviews was, you know: What is your number one priority? The number one priority in rural Newfoundland has to be jobs, and we have not come to grips with or we have not dealt with jobs in a very effective manner in rural Newfoundland.

Earlier today, in Question Period, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development asked, why are we out there today with - part-time Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. This department was supposed to go out there and take a lot of the responsibility for creating the employment that would be in rural Newfoundland. It has not been effective or, certainly, the results have not come through in order to have the jobs, to create the economy, to go out there and have an impact on our society, where there would be a positive environment, an opportunity of getting a job, to come off income support, to go out there and get into the workforce. It is very unlikely. For many of us to go out there, it is not a matter of going around the corner or down the street or to the next community and finding a job, it means moving away, it means going to places like St. John's or places like Fort McMurray or wherever to find a job. Those are major steps. They are not small decisions, when you leave an environment that you are completely familiar with and have to move away to something you have never really looked at.

A lot of those people out there who do have to find income are not the young people who are coming out of school and have the means to move and travel, they have their lives in front of them. Many of them have most of their lives behind them and grew up in circumstances and an environment that did not treat them unkindly. Now, to get out of certain circumstances that they have found themselves in, means moving away at such great distances and such an unfamiliar environment. It is quite a step.

I think, when I go back and look at the possibilities, it is not because the possibilities were not there. When I look at the District of St. Barbe, I have always said there were all kinds of possibilities, it is just that there has never been a will to take the resources that we have, take all those possibilities, and make them work for us. Some of the approaches, I suppose, to doing that - as a volunteer I was involved in the community, I went out and had an IAS process. We have gone out there. My particular group of communities are very small. It is a group of very small communities, and one of the challenges we faced in dealing with the problems we have, in order to structure our society, is to bring those communities together. This IAS had gone out and brought the leadership of the communities together and had put a number of solutions on the table, and it worked well.

One of the things that devastated me, I suppose, as we went through the process, is it had to come to an end, not as a group, but to have any financial support. It wasn't designed to deal with the problems in rural Newfoundland, it was designed for the small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario and it was just taken and put into rural Newfoundland, which is just not good enough, if you look at it. You have to go out there and design things to fit the problem. We have to go out and understand and identify the problems and then look at the possible solutions. I don't think that we have had the commitment to go out in rural Newfoundland and identify the problems. If you don't identify, you cannot very well offer solutions that are effective.

I think if we were to do that, the opportunity to create the employment opportunity to move all of our workforce into possibilities, I suppose, would be created and then it would be created for everyone. Then that would take the burden of our income support to move ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: I said the possibilities have never been looked at or have never been developed. I think they have left us to the wall, kind of thing. We have never been allowed to hit the wall I suppose, but we have never been pulled away from it. When I look at the possibilities - and I continuously talk about when we had changed from the groundfishery into the shellfish industry, the shrimp industry in particular on the Northern Peninsula. What possibilities do we have? How far can we develop this industry? Which would benefit the entire Province if it was developed in a more efficient manner than what it is today. But we have always just looked at it as: this is enough to move those people from here to there; and not see a need to move them further, which is quite unfortunate.

Port au Choix, for example - I use it many times - if they had been out of there and located - like many places, I think, in this Province with the advantages that they have, that town would have gone and maybe tripled its workforce. Instead of that, two years after the shrimp quota came on line in the northern shrimp, they had less work out of that plant then they did before the northern shrimp came on line. That is unheard of. It is unreasonable for those things to happen.

One of the other things I think about is the forest industry. They have never gone out and we have never changed with the times. That industry was out there and they seen the downward pressure and the traditional way of doing business was going in the woods with a chainsaw and your (inaudible) and being able to make a living. That industry has certainly come under a lot of pressure. I think of one town in my district, Hawkes Bay, was primarily built around the forest industry. Instead of going out there and finding solutions and knowing they needed solutions - that we have gone on for many years. It is only recently that we put together an organization to go out there and have a consultant look at the different issues that is facing the industry and look at the possibilities of how to move ahead.

So many times I think we have gone out there - technology has come and we have taken it with resistance instead of embracing it and moving ahead, because from there, I think, the jobs that we would have would be better jobs and include more people. Then again, it would make our economy that much greater, which is my argument for the impact in our income support.

I look at education; if we are going to break the cycle we have to have our youth, our children, going out there and not learning in poverty. Many times you hear, with the different programs that we have in place, that you cannot have children learning if they are hungry. It is just not possible. I think that education is certainly the way to break the cycle, to contribute to the economy. Unfortunately, as we go out today, as we are educating our children, and as they grow and move away to places like St. John's and they get their secondary education, is that they are not returning because the economies and the environment have not been moving ahead, I suppose. Rural Newfoundland seems to be falling back and we are not looking for the solutions whereas the urban areas are being developed. We are looking, and that is how we are developing our society around urban centres versus what the rural areas of this Province have, or any part of Canada, from what I understand. It is not being looked at as a choice, and we are not developing it and not seeing what potential it has and what the possibilities are, as I said. If we were to sit and look at what it would take for rural economies to work, I am quite sure the possibilities are there the same as urban; but if we have not stretched the emphasis on the rural as we have of the urban, therefore the urban society has moved along.

As well, with our kids and their dreams, so many times, I think, when the kids go out there, if their dreams are of basic needs, then obviously they cannot be filled with dreams of prosperity and the dreams that a lot of kids have.

Today, if you do not have a sense of belonging as a child, the chances of having a sense of belonging as an adult and being productive in society, I would think there is a connection there. We have to start off with our children in the society and have a sense of belonging, and I think that has to be a priority with our society. The peer pressure that comes from kids today, and I assume there was always peer pressure, but it seems today there is much more of it, with the clothing and the sports and, you know, the toys that kids have. To have that peer pressure has to be extraordinary. When you go into our society on the lower scale of our economy, that pressure has to be extremely difficult on parents who are trying to make do and trying to bring everything together, which, I suppose, would bring you into your health.

I know, in dealing with people in rural Newfoundland, with the communities being so small and being apart, the services are offered in only a certain distance, I suppose. You can live an hour or more away from a hospital or your government worker to deal with, so transportation is an issue that we have not - it is certainly a challenge in rural Newfoundland, that you would not think of in an urban centre, like here, when you are dealing with the problems that we have, that transportation would be so important, but transportation is indeed important and there is a need to be close to those services if you are in need of those services, I guess.

One of the other things is diet. Sometimes when the financial situation is not great, a diet becomes such a problem. That is something that is extremely important to the health - and that is a cycle that goes in itself. If the health of the individual is not being maintained by a proper diet and whatnot, then the cycle as it goes, and we see it so many times in our elder people, is that they are not maintaining a good diet and then their health is a downward spiral.

One of the things about the bill that I think about somewhat is the penalties towards the people who break the rules. I always had a problem, when you find yourself in circumstances with income support, that you need the penalties. It is a much-added pressure into how you maintain your standard of living.

I would just like to conclude with the fact that, as I said in the beginning, I agree with the minister in his opening remarks. The highest measure of a society is that it treats its less fortunate. I think we should always strive to make sure that we include all the people in our society and make sure that they have a decent standard of living.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak at second reading on this bill, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province. It is a new name for what has been known as social assistance in the Province. In reading the preamble, and listening to the Minister of Finance emphasizing the preamble, it is an attempt to suggest that we have a different approach to the provision of income for people who need it than we had before.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read from the provisions of the preamble and discuss some of the aspects of the current delivery of social assistance or income support in this Province. The preamble says, "AND WHEREAS the delivery of income and employment support programs shall respect the dignity and privacy of the individual and be equitable, accessible, co-ordinated and fiscally responsible..." That follows after the first preamble which says, "WHEREAS the promotion of self-reliance and well-being, participation in community life and the alleviation of poverty are social policy goals...".

Mr. Speaker, this is a big shift. It is a shift from what I think a lot of people expected and suspected was a basic right of citizenship, that you not be permitted to starve, that you be given the basic dignity of having a shelter over your head, of nutritious food to eat and clothes on your back as a basic right of citizenship - not something directed at something else, the promotion of self-reliance. We are all very happy to see self-reliance promoted, but to place a piece of legislation upon which people are primarily dependent for the basic elements of existence in life in this context, I think, is wrong. Not only is it wrong, Mr. Speaker, but we have in this legislation the suggestion that these programs are delivered based on a function of dignity, the dignity of the person, and that the privacy of people is respected. That, Mr. Speaker, is very far from the reality of people who are in receipt of income support from this government in this Province today. You merely have to look at the amount of benefits that people are given under income support to decide for yourself whether or not people who are in receipt of income support or social assistance are treated with dignity.

If you were to ask yourself what a single person required for the basic necessities of life, Mr. Speaker, what would you think the monthly amount would be? What would you think a person would need to live on, to be able to survive for a full month? If you were on social assistance and your only means of support - you had no other means of support - what would you need to be able to live?

Well, the basic rate, Mr. Speaker, is $97 a month. That is the basic rate of social assistance for someone in this Province who is said to be living with relatives. If the reason for your assistance is unemployment, this is, the basic rate is $97. If you are living with non-relatives, it is a great sum of $138 per month.

Mr. Speaker, there recently was done a survey in this Province by the Nutritionist Association, and they do it on an annual basis. They look at what is the basic requirement for an individual for a nutritious food basket, and they compare the prices. They look at the prices in the supermarkets in the various parts of the Province to come up with what is the minimum cost of providing a nutritious food basket for an individual. That nutritious food basket for a single individual in Newfoundland and Labrador is, in a rural area near St. John's, $42 per week. That gives you about $168 per month as a requirement for nutritious food for one person in the St. John's area. In the central area - they vary around the Province, not by much, by a couple of dollars each way. In Central Newfoundland, rural, $40.50 for a single man per week, $160 a month. Yet, the Department of Human Resources and Employment suggests that the basic rate of social assistance for an individual - a single, unemployed person - a proper rate is $138 when they are living with non-relatives; for example, boarding. If you are boarding with someone, if this person is boarding with a non-relative, they are expected to be able to pay board and live on $138 a month. That is for everything. That is not just food. That involves personal care, whether it be toothpaste, toothbrush, personal care items, clothing, anything that you need, plus food - $138 a month maximum. Yet, the nutritionist will tell us that the minimum requirement for nutritional food for a single person for a month is $168. That is just food alone. Somehow or other, this individual is supposed to get food, shelter, clothing, and personal care needs, all attended to for $138 when food alone, nutritious food alone, costs $168, or $160-plus. Is that, I ask you, a recognition of the dignity of a person who lives on social assistance?

I can go through example after example, all the way up the scale, of individuals with families, couples, single parents, and look at the nutritious food basket alone, compare it with the social assistance rates, and see how miserably people are treated.

When the consultation took place - the minister and various members on the government side have talked about this consultation that took place for people - one of the fundamental issues that came up every single time was that the people on social assistance, the people in receipt of income support, are not receiving enough money to be able to live and live properly. A fundamental problem, and yet not addressed in this legislation except falsely in a preamble which suggests people are going to be treated with dignity. That is not the case.

When we see other examples of social assistance rates that are being given for rent, for example, again we have to use statistics because these are what we need to go on. The average rent for a two bedroom apartment in St. John's in October, 2002, is $589. The average rent for a one bedroom apartment in St. John's in October, 2002, is $510. Yet, what does this government provide for rent? One hundred and forty-nine dollars for a single adult living alone, renting a room, apartment or house, $149. For a family renting an apartment or a house, $372. There is an additional amount. There is a special additional assistance that can be available for mortgage or rent, of $61, bringing the total up for a family to $433. That is the absolute maximum, Mr. Speaker, and that has not changed in years. Yet, the rent has gone steadily up - to the point where the maximum is $433 for a family. Yet, a two bedroom apartment in St. John's, for example, would cost in excess of $500 - in fact, $589 - for a two bedroom apartment in St. John's as of October, 2002.

How can we possibly suggest that a fundamental principle of this legislation is that people shall be treated and deserving of dignity, and the program and the delivery of income and employment programs respect the dignity and privacy of the individual?

It is fundamentally wrong, Mr. Speaker. What is the result of that? The result of that is that people who live on social assistance are constantly deprived of the necessities of life. They do not have adequate shelter. They cannot pay their light bill. They do not have enough food to eat. What does that mean? It means their health deteriorates. They cannot get themselves in a situation where they are going to improve their life. In fact, they are part of a downward spiral of bad health, bad opportunity, and bad living conditions. That is the state of people who live on social assistance today in this Province, and it is a shame, Mr. Speaker.

How, also, are people on social assistance or income support treated by this government in terms of dignity, respect and privacy? Let's look at age. There are special categories. Young people under twenty-four are treated in ways that are discrimination to them based on age. They receive lesser amounts of support and access to programs - access to apartments. There are special categories for people over thirty being treated one way and people under thirty being treated another. This is pure discrimination based on age, Mr. Speaker. Yet this government, instead of having policies that do not discriminate, wait for somebody out there who can afford to do it or get someone to challenge it on the basis of the Charter of Rights based on discrimination, based on age. We have that happening in our Province because people who are on social assistance are being treated differently on the basis of age. There is a definition of adult in the act, and the definition of adult should apply to all adults who are eighteen years of age and over, and not discriminate on the basis of age.

We have young people, single parents, for example, who are students, who are treated in a way that causes them to be unable to go to post-secondary education because the shelter component of their student loan is clawed back by this government. Instead of allowing a person who is on social assistance to attend university, to only borrow that which is required to get their education, this government has decided to claw back the shelter component and make all of the expenses of a person, perhaps a single parent who has to pay for child care and clothes, diapers and all of the things that are required for a child, all of that becomes a part of their student loan debt, instead of just the cost of the education itself, not really giving them a chance.

One of the consequences, too, is that women who are single parents - and there are men single parents, too, of course, but 95 per cent, or close to 100 per cent of the single parents we are talking about, are actually women trying to get ahead and get to a situation where they can be self-reliant and independent. To go to post-secondary education is a big step. It takes them longer. Many times they have to do fewer courses because of the responsibilities of parenthood, and this is something that takes place on a regular basis. They have to spend longer times at university or other post-secondary institutions and end up borrowing more money because they happen to be in that situation. Yet, the social assistance or the income support is clawed back by the department as part of the shelter component. We see that happening continuously in this Province despite complaints by us in the New Democratic Party and complaints by single parent associations in the past.

I use some examples of how individuals are treated by this department and by government in terms of them being on social assistance. We have had complaints, Mr. Speaker, about people's lack of privacy, lack of dignity, and how they are treated in going to the offices of social services. Down in Marystown, for example, to apply for social assistance and income support in Marystown you go to a wicket in an office, the same place where people are applying for unemployment insurance. You go to a wicket and you are asked to answer questions, not in privacy. All the people waiting in the line can hear because you are not sitting down in an office with a social worker. You are talking outside of a wicket to somebody working for the Department of Human Resources and Employment, and all the people around you can hear you answer questions and be asked questions about your personal circumstances, and why you are there, and why you need assistance, and what is going on. That is not treating people with dignity, Mr. Speaker. That is, in fact, invading their privacy and taking away their privacy and taking away their dignity.

We have seen examples as well, Mr. Speaker, in an area that is known across this country in terms of the rules of social services departments or social assistance rules across the country. It is known derisively as the Spouse-in-the-House rule. I will, for a moment, explain how it has come to be called that, Mr. Speaker. The reason is, of course, when the department of social services, or in this case the Human Resources and Employment Department, determines a rate of assistance, it is based on what means of support or income an individual has. Usually we are talking about women, most often women with children, who are forced to apply for social assistance because they have no other means of support.

If a woman is on social assistance, the department of social services or the Department of Human Resources and Employment has a great deal of interest in who else might be living in or staying at the house that this person is living in. If the social services department decides, or even receives a report, Mr. Speaker, or even receives a report, that a man may be living in this house, that person is cut off social assistance pending an investigation. Mr. Speaker, this has happened again and again and again in this Province. I have heard other speakers mention this as a problem that has come to their attention, other members of the House, and I am sure every member has heard some of the stories from their constituents and others about Spouse-in-the-House cases.

The approach and the attitude of government in these cases is absolutely abominable. It is discriminatory against women and the rules - even the rules that we have here in this legislation - similar rules have been found to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, contrary to the dignity of individuals and their rights under our Constitution, and yet this government, this minister, this department, is presenting to this House of Assembly rules that are similar to rules that have been found in other provinces to be contrary to the Human Rights Codes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will be a little more particular in a few moments.

Let me give you a few examples, and the consequences to people who suffer from an accusation. Sometimes it is by a neighbour, sometimes it is by someone else on social assistance who has an axe to grid, sometimes it is by a stranger, sometimes it is by a spouse, or a former spouse who is angry at the person in receipt of income support for reasons having to do with a failed relationship or failed marriage, or is jealous of the fact that this woman may have a new relationship or a new friend and complains to the Department of Social Services that this person is living with someone else. The immediate consequence, without any investigation, is they cut them off. I will give you one example about the woman with long-term diabetes. A week before Christmas, her brother came to visit her for Christmas. Somebody reported this person as living with someone, and this person was cut off a week before Christmas. It took a month to get their social services reinstated because the investigation, of course, showed that there was no relationship. There was no spouse in the house. It was an accusation, a figment of someone's imagination. Yet, the department of social services cut off this person who had been a diabetic and on social assistance for many, many years because of illness and inability to support herself. This is the kind of thing that goes on and on.

I can see I only have one minute left. I think I could go on for a number of minutes and perhaps an hour or two on this issue alone, because the dignity of people on social services and in receipt of income support is attacked continuously by attitudes like that, by policies like that, and by the legislation that, in this case is, in fact contrary, I believe, to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A workers' compensation definition of spouse requires you to be living together with someone for three years before you are recognized as a spouse. In the legislation before this House, it says that you are cohabiting. You could be cohabiting for one day and be considered a spouse under this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a minute to just finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members.

This is one rule that I want to put on record that we challenge directly. We will be seeking amendments in Committee to have a better definition of spouse. There are too many discriminatory aspects of this legislation that particularly affect women. The Spouse-in-the-House rule, the shelter component for students, and the attitude of the policies of cutting people off first and asking questions later are things that have to change if we are going to respect the dignity and the privacy of individuals who are forced to live on social assistance in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It gives me pleasure to stand today and make a few comments with reference to Bill 23. First of all, I want to compliment the minister and his staff at the department for the long hours that I am sure they put into this, because I know many of them over there in that department and they have special skills and concerns for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, in 1998, the Department of Human Resources and Employment broadened its mandate to incorporate employment support and labour marketing programs in addition to income support. The reason we have this new bill before us is that the old bill, I think, was outdated, in my mind anyway. It goes back to 1977, and we have to reflect on new goals and objectives so that we can strengthen the links between the employment services and the income support services, Mr. Speaker.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, I will come to his comments shortly.

The legislation, Mr. Speaker, is about the framework and general directions for programs and services. The proposed bill reflects the department's new mandate and makes the link between income support and employment services. The part with regard to the Social Services Appeal Board Act is proposed to be repealed so that interested parties have one piece of legislation to deal with.

I believe that the present legislation that we have has served the Province well, but due to the changing times and circumstances I believe that we have to bring in new legislation to carry out the work in the best interests of the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

In looking at some of the general statistics in relation to income support, and I guess some of them are no doubt staggering figures, since 1997 the caseload has declined from 36,660 to approximately 28,000 as of October, 2002.

The other staggering figure, Mr. Speaker, is when we look at the youth. Approximately 51 per cent of the new entrants into the income support program were twenty-nine years of age and under. However, those numbers have decreased, as well, from 1997 from 22,000 down to 12,500. I am sure that the objective of this government is to continue working through the department to see that those numbers continue to decrease.

When it comes to the employment services part of the program, employment and career services have included programs not only for the youth but persons with disabilities and income support clients as well as offering a range of supports to the general public.

Mr. Speaker, HRE, through employment and career services, have supported and dealt with approximately 5,000 clients on a yearly basis. Not only that, but they provide support to social assistance clients to help them find employment. I know that it is an excellent program because I know of several cases in my own district where young people who were dependent on income support; however, through the employment services that have been offered, I know two young people from the one family who have gone on and received their training and have been employed in well-paid jobs since that time. I believe more of this has to be done.

Also mentioned in this is with regard to - which I think is very important - people with disabilities. I think they have spoken loud and clear during the consultation period, that they should not be treated any differently than other people and not segregated in any manner with the proposed income and support, the new act. That is not there, Mr. Speaker. That will not take place.

The other item that I would like to touch on is with regard to the privacy and confidentially, under section 7. Clients will be pleased to know that the new act provides for strong and active measures to protect personal information.

It also states, Mr. Speaker, that applicants, recipients, and persons acting on their behalf, may review their personal information and request corrections if there are errors made. I believe this is a good area that has been added to the act because I have known people who, for various reasons, have had either letters or phone calls from the department from time to time outlining information to them of great concerns that they never knew was on their file. Now, they will be able to go and review their file and correct those problems.

The act also provides a clear commitment to conduct a formal review process every three years, in addition to the yearly budget process. I believe that this holds government more accountable in a meaningful way.

Employment is the real key to reducing and eliminating poverty. This government has made economic development and long-term sustainable jobs a priority, Mr. Speaker.

I want to refer to my hon. colleague across the way, from Waterford Valley, when he referenced, when he spoke last week, a report that he heard on CBC about health and poverty being connected, and about having this - I think it was put forward to the Romanow Report. Our goal is to see that poverty is reduced as much as possible in this Province. We believe that the track that this department and government is on in helping assist people in entering the labour market is the real true way to follow through on. We all know, and I have heard other members state, that child poverty existing in this Province and right across the country is of great concern. One child in poverty is one too many.

Mr. Speaker, I also quote from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley when he made the comment that the Canadian studies have shown that a family of four requires $30,424 to be at the poverty line. I know this is a staggering figure because when you break it down that works out to approximately $580 per week, or even at the rate of $14.50 per hour. I think many jurisdictions are having problems with where the line is drawn, what is classified as poverty and not.

Our youth, Mr. Speaker: As I stated earlier, about 26 per cent of all those who received income support last year were in the age bracket of between eighteen and twenty-nine.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned people with disabilities: I believe that we received a strong message from persons with disabilities during the consultation process and they do not want to be treated any differently. I have known cases, having worked with various organizations in the district over the years and been involved with the program of community living, been involved when the people are moved from the institutions out to the group homes and working in conjunction with the Canadian Paraplegic Association, and I have to say, I think the act does exactly what those people want. They have to be recognized and every effort made so that those people can enter the workforce just as importantly as anybody else, Mr. Speaker.

Another area I would like to touch on is with regard to the overpayments and the underpayments. Under this section, it says: The majority of overpayments are created as a result of the income support programs' role while people are waiting for employment insurance or Canada Pension, and they receive income support and agree to repay later.

I believe this is very important because the clients have the right to appeal. They can also go into the office and speak to the workers with regard to this overpayment. I can assure you, I have had cases in my district where people have received notifications that they owe a certain amount of money, which they were not even aware of because they thought it had been taken care of. Now they will be notified well in advance when any changes should take place.

Mr. Speaker, the Income Support Program has introduced a number of changes over a recent period of time. Some of them would be the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, which is provided in conjunction with the Canada Child Tax Benefit; the extended drug card, and since 2000 clients can retain their drug card coverage for six months after they leave the program for employment reasons. Another one is child care. Rates provided for private child care, where licenced child care is unavailable, increased to $325 for one child. There was also an increase in the exemptions. Since 1999, families who are successful in finding employment are now able to retain up to $150 per month. Mr. Speaker, those are all very worthwhile changes to the program.

Mr. Speaker, to touch on the area with regard to the appeal board. I am very pleased to say that I think it is a good idea where they will have a client or a former client appointed to the appeal board. This was strongly supported by participants during the consultation process because having been involved in the appeal process for quite some time, I believe that a person who has been either on the system, or still there, would really add a lot to the decision making at that level.

Also, with regard to the appeal process, on page 24 of the act, I would also like to note that - I think it is 42.(10), "Appeals heard by the board may be conducted in person or by teleconference or video conference...". I have to say I am glad the words ‘in person' is still there in the act because I believe there is nothing like going before the board face to face rather than through the teleconference process.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am in full support of this legislation. We, as the government - and I have to go back to a comment that was made by the hon. Member for St. John's South when he made his presentation last week. He felt that if we were managing our resources properly, there would be more funds available to help with the various social issues in the Province. I couldn't help but agree with him more, Mr. Speaker. That is what this government is doing, when you look at the areas with regards to White Rose and Voisey's Bay. That is our goal, Mr. Speaker, to see that the benefit from those resources will come back to the Province and help with all the various programs. I believe it is very important to update and build new initiatives that will move us forward in a very progressive way.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would like to conclude by, once again, congratulating the minister and his staff on a wonderful job with this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise today and have a few comments on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody recognizes that the overhaul was badly needed and we waited a long, long time to have an overhaul and to include extensive consultation with all the stakeholders. Mr. Speaker, the stakeholders today are a lot. They are people in the community who deal with people relying on income support. It is the landlords and businesses within the community who give credit to certain people. We have all kinds of businesses that deal with people depending on income support.

Mr. Speaker, it took a long time to have the information that we need to compile the new legislation, the new bill, dealing with this very important topic, this very important issue. As I go, I will elaborate on some of the fundamental issues dealing with this act and dealing with the people in the Province who are depending on legislators to make a difference, to make a change. Overhauling an act like this means to change it, to make it better, to make it better for the people of the Province who avail of assistance from the government and to make it better for all the stakeholders involved in this.

Mr. Speaker, the ability that we need to do the work within a department depends on how good the legislation is. We need the ability in an act like this to make changes from time to time, changes in the economy in certain areas, changes in situations with people who depend on income support and supportive services. So we need that ability to make changes in this act on a frequent basis, a more frequent basis than we have had over the last twenty-five or thirty years.

I think, Mr. Speaker, people in the Province today recognize that if we are going to make a big difference, then we need that ability to do that, we need the ability for the minister and his department and all the elected officials to sit down and debate changes and amendments to this act which will come in the next few years and over a period of time. We will see amendments to allow us to change things to do things better.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few things on the fundamental issues as it relates to the economy and the employment of our people; circumstances beyond their control, and fundamental issues where clients are depending on social supports. Clients in rural Newfoundland, especially, badly need changes to legislation and acts that will meet the needs of the people in small and rural areas of the Province, where it is not easy for them to come into a minister's office and sit down and discuss their problems. They do have access to their MHAs but the MHAs must still work with government, with the department, with the ministers to make sure that whatever a client is entitled to, then he will get that service and support that he needs.

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issues in this agreement should reflect the fundamental needs of recipients of any social program. Fundamentally, they are basic needs. The issues involve basic needs of people, such as: housing, health care, availability of drug cards and drug support, and transportation sometimes. When it relates to our health care, then we need policies and legislation to make sure the needy people within our Province get access, not only to services of drugs and drug cards, but services that will get them to facilities outside of their area, such as coming into St. John's to see specialists. We want to make sure that these services are available and the needs of the people who are depending on these services are met.

Mr. Speaker, even in the income support, that should be, basically, a fundamental process put in place where financial assistance is given for the needy. I say that with respect of the needy because all elected officials in this House today have needy people in their districts, and needy people do not mean people of the lowest income. Needy people in this Province are people who are in need. Sometimes it means even the middle class have needs, and we must realize that.

We must realize that our client service officers are overworked. They are working at a capacity where it becomes unbearable and they have to take time off. Then the workload increases on the other client officers who are there and it makes it hard to find solutions on a timely basis. A timely basis to clients in this Province means things done right away. When you want to avail of an appointment at the Health Sciences here in St. John's, then you cannot wait a week to go through an internal review process. You cannot wait two weeks for an appeal process.

Mr. Speaker, I have people in my district who get a call from a specialist, saying: You must be in St. John's in two days time. These people who are dependent on income support to make sure that they keep that appointment need action right away. They need action immediately so that they can put a financial process in place to get the transportation they need to get to St. John's to meet that appointment. In the past, I have seen cases where that did not happen; cases where people had to cancel appointments for which they had been waiting for six and eight months, but, because they did not have the financial funding or assistance to get there, they had to reschedule the appointment. I think that is a shame and a crime in this day and age when we all are serious about our health, when we are worried about our health, and we depend on social income and support incomes to get us to take better care of ourselves by making these appointments.

Mr. Speaker, all of us here deal with our client service officers in our particular districts and I am sure there is not one member in this House today who can say that their district is well taken care of, well represented, and have no problems with respect to income support for everybody in their district; because, I tell you, people in the districts, people I have talked to, members I have talked to, have similar problems as what is in my district. The client officers - I understand their needs. I understand that they are overworked. They cannot have the support they need to do their job and they get frustrated. People are sometimes put on the back burner because of not enough bodies to do the work that needs to be done.

This legislation, even though it may address a lot of the needs with respect to the bill and the act of employment and income services, it does not take care of the need that we need within the system, within the department and within the offices, the regional offices, when they need more bodies to do a better job than what they are doing. I am not saying that would reflect on the workers themselves. They are doing a fantastic job. They are doing a great job in their offices, and every one of them are good to work with, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it makes me wonder why they are working there because some of these people could be making just as good a living at a lot better job, but they are so committed to their job, so committed to their clients, that they stick it out and stay in the places where we need them.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring up some of the instances in my district with respect to the legislation and policies within the past. I have seen, over the last little while, some of my constituents trying to avail of social services or income support to make their lives better in their own homes and communities. That would be with respect to the furniture budgets. Mr. Speaker, I do know how many, but dozens of people have called me with respect to the furniture budget that the department has with income support. Some of these people cannot do their work in their homes. They cannot wash their own clothes by hand, and they cannot avail of laundromats that are in the community. The only answer to it would be to provide them with a washer or a dryer, or some appliance it takes to do the job that they need to do right in their own home.

Mr. Speaker, I had one case where a lady had severe arthritis, and her husband was a severe heart patient. Both could not do any type of meaningful work within the house, or do the work that they needed done relating to the washing of their clothes. Because they lived within six kilometres of a laundromat, they were expect to carry their clothes to that laundromat. They were expected to get a taxi at $8 a shot over and $8 dollars back, plus the cost of doing the laundry.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about people in other jurisdictions, but I know in my district people like that cannot afford to do that. From the goodness of neighbours and other relatives they manage to get by somehow, but those are some of the policies in legislation that we have to be looking at. When we are talking with respect to needy people, then we have to recognize what needy is. What does it mean? It not only means that you need food on the table, some of the fundamental issues and fundamental needs of people in the Province, depending on our social programs. They need a good roof over their head, they need food on the table, and they need to be able to survive in their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, the system has let a lot of people down over the years. I know there are many, many calls that I get where people are living on less that $500 a month. I had one lady, her husband died last January, and she was expected to pay back an overpayment. Mr. Speaker, after her husband died, she was not only left with that overpayment; she was left with the burden of maintaining the same house, the same light bill, basically the same upkeep of a home, on one income of less that $400 a month.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, when we are doing legislation, policies and bills, we have to make sure that the stakeholders are the people involved, the stakeholders are the people who are in need. We have to make sure that everybody gets a chance of having a meaningful life in their own home and not having to worry about whether they should buy food or oil this month. They need both. You cannot live in a home in the winter months without heat, and you cannot be there in that house in the winter months without food. We must connect it all together so that the needs of the needy are taken care of under the fundamental principles, the fundamental issues, within this legislation dealing with all the needs.

Mr. Speaker, we see a lot of other issues and problems that arise from policies from Human Resources and Employment and other departments. It seems like one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. In a lot of cases, we have to work together with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and with Human Resources and Employment. When you go to Human and Resources and Employment with a problem with a constituent whose roof is leaking very badly, almost to a point where they have to move out, with five and six buckets around, and they say: Well, that is not our problem, you have to go to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Mr. Speaker, when they go to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and if they availed of a program within the last five years, they are no longer eligible for help. So, what do they do then? A lot of them still have to keep emptying their buckets because social services said: There is nothing we can do. Housing says: There is nothing we can do.

That is a need. It is a need of people in this Province today, and if we do not take care of it, it is going to get worse. The needs only get worse over time. I believe in prevention and intervention, not only with respect to the infrastructure of constituents, their homes and everything else - even in our health care we have to be serious about intervention and prevention. If we do not allow people, through our legislation, to avail of drug cards, to avail of programs to fix their roofs, to avail of services to get them to a hospital on time for an appointment, then don't you think, Mr. Speaker, that their situation is going to get worse? Don't you think the roof is going to get worse? Don't you think that their sickness is going to get worse?

Mr. Speaker, when we are debating legislation, when we are talking about cases in our own districts, when we are working on behalf of the people who elected us, when we are representing the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we must recognize the fundamental issues and needs of the people. I keep saying this over and over and over. I know it takes a great deal of money to do it, but somehow government is responsible to find the money. They are responsible to use money within government departments in a responsible way so that - not only recognizing the needs - we act on them. We make sure that the needs of our people are taken care of. We make sure that three kids and a single parent do not be left in a basement apartment without heat.

Mr. Speaker, I like visiting the constituents who call me with concerns and problems within their household. I visit. I visited a young man - through no fault of his own - a few months ago, who has three kids. When I visited his home, he had one chair, one table, no couch, no chesterfield, one bed. Mr. Speaker, of course the stove and fridge were supplied by the landlord. When I walked into that home, I felt so small that I would have to visit a home like that and look at a situation that really broke my heart. Social services was giving the maximum they could give him. Through no fault of his own, he could not find a job. Now, I do not know how we could find jobs for everybody in the Province who needs them, but there are ways through income support and employment support, which under this legislation give the government the ability to find ways of finding employment for people who seek income support. There are a lot of things we could do. The government has to get serious about economic development. It has to get serious about industry, trade and rural development. They have to put mechanisms in place where sponsors can do some of the production and economic growth within smaller communities so that people who need help, need employment support, cannot only avail of the income support but also make some extra money to help them boost their livelihood, to make things better in their homes so that they can buy the furniture they need; so they can buy the couches and the beds and whatever they need.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about cases of situations where overpayments were required to be repaid by the department. They are putting a lot of people in very serious jeopardy of surviving. Some people even say: Well, why should I report income? Because I am only going to be penalized for it. Why should I look for a job? I am going to be penalized for it. I am not going to be better off.

I know a lady in my district, last year her husband took a stroke. He was working and making good money. She had a bout of cancer and she had a disabled son. Now, she worked in a store in Grand Falls-Windsor making a little over the minimum wage. She worked very hard. She had many trips back and forth to St. John's here to see specialists. Trips to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: A couple of minutes to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: I congratulated that lady, for not only suppling the basic necessities to her family, but letting the government off the hook. She let the government off the hook because she decided she wanted to work instead of getting social assistance, but when she went looking for a drug card, they said: No, we cannot give you a drug card because you are working and you are making a little over - between the Canada Pension Disability and her income, the amount that she was allowed to make to have that drug card. Now, Mr. Speaker, that lady decided to keep on working. Even today she is battling cancer, and I congratulate her. I think there are a lot of people in this Province who are like her. So, we need some type of income support and employment support, guaranteed under legislation, for sure, that will help people like her, and not only helps her, but helps all the rest of the taxpayers too, because it lessens the burden on government coffers so that the rest of us and the rest of the Province will not have to pay so much in taxes.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I would like to say about this bill, and I will get a chance later, I guess, to speak again. I thank you for your attention and give my colleagues a chance to speak.

Thank you, very much.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased, Madam Speaker, to participate in second reading of Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

We have heard many comments, both on Thursday past and again this afternoon, from members on both sides of this House who have spoken, I guess, on many of the strengths and some of the concerns that have been addressed when we consider some of the experiences that many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had over the past number of years in attempting to receive what only can be considered a fair acceptance and a fair amount to represent the concerns that are being experienced by many people in our Province. However, in fairness to the minister, Madam Speaker, and in fairness to what government is doing with respect to Bill 23, it is certainly perhaps an honest effort and an honest attempt being made by government to present, through new legislation, the consolidation of several pieces of legislation. It is our understanding that this bill will attempt to consolidate the old Social Assistance Act, the Social Services Appeal Board Act, and the rehabilitation of disabled persons act with one single piece of legislation, namely this Bill 23, which is being proposed and debated in second reading this afternoon.

The thrust, Madam Speaker, and the spirit of this legislation is best indicated when we read the recitals on page 4, which indicates and begins by simply saying:

WHEREAS the promotion of self-reliance and well-being, participation in community life and the alleviation of poverty are social policy goals.

So, this in the first recital, I guess, clearly indicates what this legislation is attempting to do, but it is perhaps in the purpose of the legislation - which is found in section 3 - which perhaps shows where government is coming from. It describes with some certainty, government's thinking and provides the people of the Province with the intent and the spirit of this legislation. It includes, for example, 3.(1) "The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the provision of income and employment support to eligible persons." We meet early on in the legislation and we see the definition of eligibility. It indicates that 3.(2) "Income support programs and services include programs and services designed to (a) provide financial assistance to persons determined to be in need in order to assist in meeting daily living expenses, shelter, transportation to medical services and special needs."

Section 3 continues, Madam Speaker, by stating that this act is designed to "(b) provide supplementary financial assistance to eligible persons with earned income; (c) provide supplementary financial assistance to eligible families in accordance with inter-governmental funding arrangements; (d) provide support to victims of violence"- very important, Madam Speaker- "including timely access to financial assistance and referrals...". It will be interesting to see exactly how this particular provision, and I say to the minister, how this particular provision may act in accordance with certain provisions of family law legislation and certain guiding principles that are dealt with on a daily basis in our provincial courts and in our Unified Family Court.

The purpose section, Madam Speaker, goes on to address (3) "Employment support programs and services include programs and services designed to (a) assist individuals to acquire the employment supports, skills and experience necessary to successfully prepare for, access and keep employment and to obtain access to job opportunities and training; (b) provide for employment assessments and the development of employment plans, including programs and services designed to help meet the objectives of an employment plan."

Clearly, Madam Speaker, section 3 gives a very clear illustration of what the purpose of this legislation is all about. However, we have to be mindful, and I think the minister has to be mindful, and indeed, any individual who works within the minister's department, and indeed, those individuals who have to call upon this particular department to seek help and to seek assistance either from an employment or income basis, we have to be mindful of the implementation of the legislation. That is what is so critical, Madam Speaker. It is wonderful to see a glowing description of the purpose of this legislation and what it ought to do and what is set out as the goals and the objectives of legislation. However, I guess the proof is in the pudding in terms of the implementation of these goals, the implementation of the intent, the implementation of the purpose, and that perhaps will be a matter of time, I guess, before the people of our Province will have a true indication as to whether or not this well-intentioned and well-motivated piece of legislation succeeds. It can only succeed, of course, when the spirit and the thrust of this legislation is met in terms of the implementation of it.

In addition to the purpose provision there are service principles as well, found in section 4, that perhaps are somewhat illustrative of what I was just saying in terms of there being good guidelines and good principles being spelled out in the legislation. It says, "The following principles apply to the delivery of income and employment programs and services: (a) access to those programs and services shall be provided in a timely manner with appropriate consideration of an applicant's unique circumstances and needs..."- I think that word ‘unique' is very important because obviously, we are talking about individual's with unique and special circumstances that are obviously unique and special in their own lives - "... as departmental resources, including budgetary appropriations, permit." Again, those words, ‘budgetary appropriations' is noteworthy.

A further principle, Madam Speaker, "(b) there shall be accountability through regular review of this Act and the regulations made under it; (c) this Act, the regulations made under it, and the policies and procedures of the department, shall, to the extent possible, be available to the public...". That only makes sense, Madam Speaker, in terms of ensuring that the public of our Province is well informed in terms of what the guidelines, what the procedure, what the policy, what the regulations are. So that, obviously, is only an act of good government in terms of making sure that the information is fully disclosed.

The final service principle that is spelled out in section 4 makes reference to the fact that, "(d) applicants and recipients shall be treated with dignity and respect in accordance with the standards of service developed by the department."

We certainly, on this side of the House, Madam Speaker, have no difficulty with such wording. The wording is important. I think the recognition and the identification of a person who seeks help, and who seeks guidance from this department, being treated as a person with dignity, is so basic and fundamental that obviously we agree with that wording. The independence and the dignity of the individual is obviously critical and crucial when dealing with this legislation.

Again, I say to the hon. minister, it is the implementation of this legislation that will ultimately and eventually determine as to whether or not this legislation has met its objectives, and whether or not it accomplishes what is being set out in both section 3 and section 4.

Madam Speaker, in reviewing the legislation and in listening to some of the comments that have been made by hon. members on both sides, it seems to me that perhaps one of the more important provisions and, in part, a new provision, is the reference to Appeal under Part IV. Section 41.(2) describes, "An applicant or recipient may request an internal review of (a) a decision with respect to income support made under the authority of this Act or the regulations; (b) a decision respecting eligibility for, suspension or cancellation of employment support made under the authority of this Act and the regulations; or (c) an underpayment or overpayment."

Obviously, there is provision for a member of the public to refer a matter internally to ensure that the issue is being addressed properly and to see whether or not a particular decision can be reversed in favour of the applicant.

One advantage in this particular provision, Madam Speaker, is the fact that there is no need, obviously, for a more detailed appeal application under the appeal provisions that are set out later on, further to section 41 and section 42. At least there is an opportunity for an internal review, much like what we deal with on a daily basis, as Members of the House of Assembly, in dealing with internal reviews under workers' compensation legislation. Obviously, before it is necessary to go to the review tribunal, very often a decision is appealed, or brought to the commission, so that there can be an internal review made with respect to a particular procedural point or policy issue. Only then, depending on that internal decision, which seems to me most often, or very often, is against the applicant, only then is it necessary to go for a further appeal under the review appeal board.

Similarly, in this case there is at least an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to allow an individual with his or her counsel, or with his or her Member of the House of Assembly, or some individual who is prepared to assist, to allow to at least achieve some further review internally, prior to the appeal mechanism kicking in.

Madam Speaker, section 42 addresses specifically the appeal board. One component of section 42 - this has been brought out by the minister in his introductory comments, and it seems to me to be a move in the right direction - is with respect to the external appeal board, that one of the board members shall be a current or past recipient of income or employment support. Madam Speaker, that can only be seen as being progressive and certainly is a concept, I am sure, which would be supported by members on this side of the House. To have an individual, obviously, who has experienced and has lived in terms of what it means to be on income support, or receiving assistance in one way or another, to then be an adjudicator himself or herself and to hear first-hand himself or herself what is being presented as a part of an appeal can only be seen as a move in the right direction. Obviously, what this does is, it allows one person at least to have fully experienced what it means to be on the other end of this legislation, and therefore can only be seen as a move that will assist those applicants and assist those individuals who seek further redress through section 42 under the components section of the appeal board.

The act goes on to give some explanation of when appeals have to be lodged, how much time is in fact put in place to allow the appeal board to render its decision. There is an interesting provision that talks about the powers of the board. One thing about the powers of the appeal board, it is only hoped that by determining through legislation and giving a very detailed description of what the powers of an administrative board are, it is only hoped that these powers are not limited and are not restricted. If that were the case, it defeats the purpose of what an appeal board and what a tribunal are all about. Obviously, an appeal board is given the mandate to render a decision based upon evidence that it has heard as a result of the appeal being put forward, but then, of course, we see that there are restrictions and limitations on what an appeal board can do.

I remember, when going to appeal hearings myself on many occasions on behalf of constituents of my own district of St. John's East, one of the first things that is said by a member of the board is that if this particular appeal deals in any way with policy, we cannot do anything about it. We cannot change the policy. We cannot review the policy. We cannot overturn the decision because it deals with policy. Well that, in some respect, seems to defeat the purpose of what an appeal board is all about. If the very issue, unfortunately, is in fact policy driven and is a result of some policy that has been formulated within the department, obviously the appeal becomes a non-starter. You are not going to get anywhere with, Madam Speaker. It is clear from the outset, as the chair of the appeal board will certainly let us know, that a decision cannot change if, in fact, the earlier decision was premised in any way on some policy decision.

So the limitations or restrictions of a tribunal, Madam Speaker, are somewhat worrisome and it is hoped at least that, keeping in mind the spirit and the thrust of the legislation as is set out in section 3 under purpose, and section 4 under the service principles, keeping in mind the intent of this legislation, hopefully the appointed appeal boards under section 42 and section 43 would be able to have the breadth, I guess, and have the scope to ensure that the interests of those people who need redress under the appeal provisions will have the ability to have a fair hearing, and hopefully a fair result.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note as well that a decision of the internal review can only be appealed to the appeal board and a decision from the appeal board can only be appealed to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, but there is an interesting limitation on section 45.(2) because it states there, "An appeal lies from the decision of the appeal board to a judge of the Trial Division upon a point of law or of mixed law and fact, and the judge of the Trial Division may award costs in that appeal under this section for or against the Crown and may fix the amount of the costs."

Madam Speaker, again, the spirit of this legislation, as I have indicated and other members on both sides have indicated, is certainly progressive and it attempts, I think, to strike a balance and it attempts to improve the archaic legislation that we have had in the Province. However, again we see a limitation in the appeal procedure which is of some concern, because really what this legislation is saying is that if an appeal from the appeal board is further appealed to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, it must deal with a matter of fact or law and a matter of fact and law. Then it goes on to say that costs could be awarded in the appeal against either party. So, we could have a very unusual situation where an applicant, a recipient of the very benefits that are being contemplated in this legislation, because of a negative decision at the appeal board hearing, if that individual wants to pursue, perhaps himself or herself, any appeal at the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, and if unsuccessful, court costs could be awarded against that very recipient who is seeking to obtain benefits under the legislation. So, Madam Speaker, it is something that I think the minister, in his concluding comments, may wish to address.

Madam Speaker, the final point I will refer to is under section 46. The reason I am talking about the appeal provisions in some detail is because very often, as Members of the House of Assembly, and on behalf on our constituents, we find ourselves in appeal situations. Of course, most often we do not hear about those situations that are handled, and handled in most cases very competently by those individuals who work within the department, the front line workers who are there to assist the people of our Province in need on a day-to-day basis, but we do hear about the appeal cases and we hear about the appeal cases because we are a part of it. We are a part of that process, and therefore it is the appeal provisions that, as members of the House, perhaps, we have to be particularly mindful of, to ensure that the provisions satisfactorily represent an ability to allow us, as members, to represent the interests of our constituents and to ensure that those decisions reflect fairly what is being sought and pursued as a part of that appeal.

My final comment, Madam Speaker, as I understand I only have a moment left, is under section 46 which talks about a special case. It states, " The appeal board may, before deciding the matter of the appeal, refer a question of law or of mixed law and fact raised at the hearing of the appeal for the opinion of a judge...." and the rules of a court "...relating to a special case apply to a reference made under this subsection as if that reference were made by the parties to the appeal."

I see that as a very positive provision, Madam Speaker, because what that allows the board to do is that, regardless of the fact situation, I guess, of a particular appeal or particular claim, if there is a point of law that the appeal board feels is worthy of some decision making and worthy of some adjudication, at least the board itself can bring forward, Madam Speaker, that particular issue to the trial division of the Supreme Court to have a judge of that court make a determination of a particular legal point; much, Madam Speaker, I guess, like a reference when an issue of importance is presented to a higher court to have that particular court adjudicate upon a point as envisaged, I guess, by the appeal board to be pertinent and relevant in the overall interests of the public.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank members for the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this issue and I look forward to my colleagues continuing in this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to share a few moments my thoughts on the bill that is currently before the Legislature, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province, because I believe it is fundamentally a very, very important issue for all of us in the Province. It always has been an important issue for us in terms of ensuring that those who needed assistance from government got it and had it provided to them on a timely basis, but also, the focus of more recent time has been around not only the provision of services to people who always need supports but also the focus of directing resources, directing personnel, directing officials within the department through enlightened policy, I would say, to focus on the issue of job creation in its truest sense.

When I say job creation, Madam Speaker, I do not refer to what would normally be considered job creation so as to assist people from one job to a point of being able to get some other type of income support such as unemployment insurance or something and then back to that cycle again, but job creation in its purest sense. That is providing and equipping people to be able to go into the workforce, to find meaningful and gainful employment and to ensure that they have long-term security for themselves and for their family as they work.

So, more than get into the details of the bill, Madam Speaker, I wanted to be on record in this House as supporting the whole notion of moving in a direction that I believe links social policy in this Province with economic policy. Some would argue, Madam Speaker, that there is probably not much of a link or that social policy is one issue and that economic policy is another issue and that they are separate and apart in terms of how we consider them within government. I have always believed, Madam Speaker, that the best social policy we could have, as a government, the best social policy that any government could have, was a policy of full employment for the people of the Province who could find themselves in a position to be able to work.

We understand there will always be people in our society who have challenges in getting employment and being able to take a job. We understand there are people who will never, by virtue of health or some other difficulty, be able to do that. For that part of our society, I believe, Madam Speaker, that government has a very important and singular role to be able to help people who are ill, to be able to help people who are disadvantaged in a way that they cannot access the workforce, and to help them on a basis that they can continue to live in dignity, that they can continue to have enough resources around them to live comfortably, to ensure that they have housing, to ensure that they have medical services, to ensure that they have access to social activities even, that are taken for granted by most of us in our everyday life. So, Madam Speaker, I say, as a government, we have a very, very important role for the part of our society who needs supports ongoing and probably for long term.

Madam Speaker, I want to speak about the direction that this bill takes because it fundamentally says that people need to be given every opportunity to be able to have meaningful long-term, full-time, well-paid employment so they can support themselves and their families. I believe, Madam Speaker, that the greatest barriers, of course, to employment are, first of all, training and education, and, secondly, an opportunity to gain some experience so that when you have training and education, you also have an opportunity to get out in the workforce and get some experience so that you can indeed prove to yourself that you are capable of doing a job, demonstrate that to an employer so that there is a healthy and a long-term relationship established.

More important, or equally as important, as being able to work and as being able to get experience and that sort of thing in the workforce, is the reality that all of that will not, in and of itself, sustain or create employment if there are not jobs existent in the marketplace for people to be able to access. That is why, Madam Speaker, as a government, we have embarked upon for many years now - as a matter of fact, for the ten years that I have been sitting in this Legislature, we have been focusing our efforts pretty strongly in the area of trying to create job opportunities for people in this Province.

Now, of course, Madam Speaker, there is this concept out there that governments cannot create jobs for everybody and be the sole employer of everybody, and I agree with that. It is impossible for government to provide work for everybody who needs work. Government's role is to employ people to deliver back to the taxpayers in a society the services that they need, and that is the level of employment that should exist in a public service.

What government should be doing, in its policy of diversification of the economy, is creating a circumstance where entrepreneurs are encouraged to invest in the business opportunities that are obvious and existent in a society, but also to be innovative and create business opportunities. So, I say that employers, in this context, Madam Speaker, are very, very important in the context of this bill, because to the extent that the free marketplace is encouraged to operate freely, unfettered and uninhibited by a regulation that is beyond what is appropriate for safety and those sorts of things, to encourage the marketplace to operate as it should, is really to encourage the growth of job opportunities in our society.

I say, Madam Speaker, this: That, as a government, we have been focused upon job growth, business growth, resource development, project growth, so that people can, in fact, have jobs to go to when they receive the training and when they receive the experience that they need. I understand that, because I hear it said sometimes in society, that big projects are not going to do me a lot of good because I am not able to do the type of work that, maybe, the project lends itself to. We recognize that some of the projects that have recently been under development, the Voisey's Bay project, the White Rose project and the other oil projects, do lend themselves to a limited number of jobs and some of them are highly skilled and well-trained jobs, but for every job that is created directly in that fashion, I say, there are two or three and sometimes four other jobs created that have benefit for people who need jobs in other areas.

So, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that this government, that this bill as representing the view of this government, is a bill that ties in very nicely with our economic agenda, and that is trying to grow our economy. This particular bill, Madam Speaker, of course, does obviously point out some of the ways that we do support people as we seek to assist them to getting to full employment. We believe that this bill, because of the emphasis it is putting on training and supporting people in training opportunities, is critical to the success of moving the economic and the social agenda of the Province forward. We believe in things like providing, if you like, interim or bridging mechanisms to help people get from where they are to where they want to be. I was pleased a couple of years ago when we brought in the concept of allowing people, as an example, as a gesture, as a means of being assistive to people, to be able to maintain a drug card, while they were coming off income supports and moving on to employment opportunities, for a period of a number of months so that they would be able to bridge themselves from one circumstance into another.

The programs that we have also, or the direction we have also taken with respect to the retention in the hands of parents of the National Child Benefit Credit, I believe, was probably one of the most important things we have done, as a government, over the last few years on behalf of the children of the Province. Because, whilst in some provinces governments clawed back, in effect, the National Child Benefit Credit, in this Province we took deliberate strategies to ensure that money stayed in the hands of those who it was intended for and allow mothers, allow fathers, allow parents, allow caregivers to be able to provide more and better for their families.

So I say, Madam Speaker, for the record, the issue of social policy as being enunciated in this bill in particular, and the direction of social policy as put forward by this government over the last number of years specifically, very, very much is linked to economic policy. I would go so far as to say that our economic policy and our social policy are really inextricably linked because one has very, very much to do with the other in terms of trying to move ourselves forward. I believe that the people of this Province who can work, who can be gainfully employed, who can today, with the skills they have, or who will be able tomorrow, with new skills and training they will acquire, I believe that every person in that circumstance in the Province who can work, wants to work. They want to gainfully and fully employed so as to be able to provide for themselves and for others.

I would say to that group in the community who today find themselves underemployed, it is the commitment of this government through our strategies, it is the commitment of this government through our direction, to ensure that we help that group to get to a place of being able to find full employment and good employment that pays a real and a sustainable wage so that they can support themselves and others.

I say also, Madam Speaker, in conclusion - because I do not want to take too long in this debate, I know others want to speak - I say to others, in conclusion, to those who have difficulty by virtue of circumstance to be able to be employed, we will be there for you. We will be there to support you. We will be there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I know the Opposition pooh-poohs the concept of being there for those who have challenges out of the norm. I say to the hon. members on the other side, it was this government who supported, and today support, programs such as the Opening Doors Program, which gives a unique opportunity to people with unique challenges to be able to enter work opportunities in the public service. I only mention the Opening Doors Program as an example of what it is we have done, what it is we have tried to do and are doing on behalf of those people who have challenges.

I say, Madam Speaker, the greatest affirmation that this government is moving in the right direction in terms of social and economic policy is this: when you mention what we are doing as a government for the people of the Province in this House, the crowd on the other side start to heckle, and start to holler, and start to interrupt, and start to run interference. That, more than anything else, says that what we are doing is right in terms of policy and direction. They do not want to hear it talked about. They do not want to hear it discussed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The minute that we talk about things that we do that are good, they start waving paper and they start shouting out across the House and making commentary in an effort to run interference.

I say to the people of this Province that they know and they have demonstrated for fourteen years, by virtue of their knowledge, that it is the type of government that we have been offering, the type of supports we have been providing, the type of initiatives that we have been promoting. They know that this government is a government that cares for, that cares about, that has a plan that is designed to help out with people in the Province with challenges beyond the norm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the people on the other side that they would do well -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: To listen to you.

MR. MATTHEWS: - as my hon. colleague from St. John's Centre says, to listen to me. They can only do well by that for another minute or two. Beyond that, they would do well to take note of what it is this bill does, what it is this government is intending to do, to continue to move the people forward.

I notice the hon. Member for Waterford Valley has a note up in front of himself for me to read. He is really disturbed when he notices, when he hears about, when he realizes, the type of progressive and supportive legislation that we are moving forward on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, want to commend the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, my colleague and friend from Topsail, for bringing forward this type of legislation because this is the type of thing that we will be able to continue to support with a growing, developing, progressive, maturing and advancing economy that, on this side of the House, we have been able to do and will continue to work on as we go hand in hand with good social policy, good economic policy, make good sense, make good outcomes for the people of the Province who have need of our support.

I say, Madam Speaker, that it is an honour to be associated with a government that does these sorts of things, that brings forward this type of legislation. If the hon. members on the other side wanted to do something really sensible, really supportive, really progressive, they would, without any further delay, move that we proclaim this bill in the House as opposed to sitting there and complaining, smirking, hollering and heckling. They should support this bill, they should say move forward, Mr. House Leader, as quickly as you can to get this bill through second reading, Committee and third reading so that the people of the Province can be benefitted by it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: To the extent that you hold up this bill, you are doing a disservice to every man, woman and child in this Province who might be able to take advantage of the supports that this bill will offer. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, if they did what they know they should do, if they did what they believe is right to do, and if they did what, in fact, we would appreciate it if they did do, they would get this bill moved forward as quickly as we can so that people can benefit from it.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for your attention, I thank you for your time, and I would ask that you would try to control that crowd over there when people on this side are making good sense, are making good points, because it bothers them. Their conscience and their face do not add up to what it is, in fact, they are expressing in terms of their actions. I would say that they should go with their head, they should go with their heart, and get this bill through as quickly as they can so that we can move on to do more and better things for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can guarantee the minister this: That every member on this side of the House will take their time to go through every piece of this bill. We are in no hurry, like the minister opposite. We are in no hurry to pass on anything in this House until everybody gets their chance to stand in the House and not make a political speech like the member opposite just made -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: - but to, in fact, talk about the legislation and how important and, I tell the minister, how sensitive this piece of legislation is to a lot of people in this Province. It is not something to be rushed through, it is not something to stand and make political tripe about here in this House. It is to deal with the bill one-on-one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I will use my time, Madam Speaker, I tell the minister, in second reading, which we normally do, to talk in a general sense about the bill, a very good piece of legislation that we will support in time, in due course. In Committee stage, in case you are very rushed, I say to the minister - for some reason I sense a Christmas rush from the minister. If he is in some rush to get this piece of legislation, or anything, through, sit back and take your time, Minister, because after second reading of this bill where we will make some points, we will start into Committee stage, as the minister knows full well, from my time in this Legislature, when we will follow piece by piece, clause by clause, and make some comments on this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: So, I am in no hurry, Madam Speaker. I would advise the minister to get another glass of water, sit back, take a few notes, and maybe when you get up next time you can talk about each piece of the legislation and put something constructive forward about this piece of legislation.

Now, I say to the minister, in fact it is true, progressive legislation that we have all supported, too sensitive to be mixing in politics in this particular piece of legislation. What I have heard from each member on this side of the House and on that side of the House, since they have gotten up to speak on this bill, until this member got up to speak on the bill, were constructive, progressive, good points, well made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: That is what, I think, the minister needs to take home. As a matter of fact, as he tells us to rush through the legislation, speak to a few of his colleagues who have already spoken and made some good points.

As a matter of fact, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi stood a little while ago to talk about some amendments, some changes that we could make to this piece of legislation, that we will certainly look at very seriously, cohabitation and spousal considerations, different amendments. We believe, whichever they may be, Madam Speaker, as we speak to each piece of this legislation in Committee, piece by piece, that we will, I say to the minister, in any way - if we can help to make amendments so that at the end of the day, when we pass law in this Legislature, in this particular case especially, it being so sensitive to all of us who deal with it on a daily basis, if we can do anything to help this minister and this government improve this piece of legislation, we will do it and we will pass it as fast as we need to pass it, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I will start with section 3.(1). I won't go through each section today because we are going to save that for Committee. Section 3(1), "The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the provision of income and employment support to eligible persons." Now, Madam Speaker, I can tell this House today that I am very familiar with this situation in this Province, for a lot of reasons that I will not go into today. I could give a long history on it. I can tell the minister, and I know my colleagues opposite, on both sides of this House, because of the position we are in as elected officials we deal with it on a daily, daily basis. As a matter of fact, I dealt with it just this morning on cases before I left my district. When I reached my office, again, another call on another situation. I know my colleagues get them on a regular basis. I know the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi gets them, certainly, on his cases. We all do. Nobody has a monopoly in this House of dealing with this sensitive issue and that is the way it should be treated.

Every single day, Madam Speaker, we get phone calls. As my colleague said earlier, we attend appeals and we sit down with this real case that we see before us in this Province today. Also, some real stats, a statistic that was just passed to me again today - I have heard it said before - that 85 per cent of people receiving social services in this Province today go to food banks. That is the real world. That is not something that somebody is making up. That is what we are dealing with on a daily basis. So, yes, we are looking at this piece of legislation as something we can improve on. But, no doubt about it, as we deal with people who are experiencing going to income support - and if you really get to know that individual and I would bet any day of any week, any member in this House can stand and give a real example of somebody in this Province who has to turn to income support. I have heard speaker after speaker, in this House, get up and talk about this - the Minister of Finance, as a matter of fact, if I remember right, talked about this as the last resort for people to go to, and it is. People do not want to go to income support unless they have to.

Back to the Minister of Mines and Energy for a second, he brought up job creation. I just want to give a couple of points alone, because it was only last week we spoke about that; job creation. The truth is, if the people in this Province had jobs to go to or job opportunities, we would not even be discussing this legislation because we would not need it. We would not need income support, but the reality is this, Madam Speaker, that there are people who, through no fault of their own, turn to income support. I know people personally. I know their circumstances.

There are also people who would like to go to work but they do not have jobs to go to. Yes, there is a tie, I say to the minister, in economic policy and social policy. There certainly is, because if we had the economy that we should have we would have less people going to income support. Therefore, we would have more funding to put into programs such as linkages to jobs, education and so on, so that we would not have to put as much of the minister's budget into the actual income support; that more money could go towards the program to get people off income support. Now, isn't that the whole reason why we try to improve on this piece of legislation? Then, in fact, we could spend more money of the minister's budget in that department for people, children, on education, people who are caught up in the cycle through no fault of their own and everyday find themselves growing up on income support. I know all about it, Mr. Speaker. I know all about those circumstances. That is the key that we should zone in on.

Before getting into the details of the legislation, if there is a purpose - as we just spoke about a few minutes ago - it is to reduce the number of people who have to get income support so that more money of the minister's department can focus on making sure we educate the young people who find themselves in these circumstances; so that the cycle will slowly get lower and lower, as far as people relying on income support; so we can break the cycle so that people - and I have heard the word used many times in this Legislature, especially since this legislation started - can move on with dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to children - that is what I want to focus in on for just a few minutes - who find their parents, whether it is a single mother, a single dad, or parents who are on income support, the dignity and the problems over the years. People talked about the stigma attached to this. It is tough. It is really tough on young children when a child has to go to school with a slip of paper to get his books from welfare. That was the whole thing back a few years ago. They have changed some words to it now but basically it is still the same. How about how that child feels knowing their parents are on income support, but knowing that they are on it because they have no other choice, whether it be a death in the family or for some other reason that they end up on income support?

To connect it to what the minister said - and you know, it is a funny thing, up to this point today - and we have not used an overburdened amount of time, I do not believe, on such a sensitive issue. We are not up here today to criticize and tear down this piece of legislation. From what I understand, from every single person who has stood so far in this Legislature, it has been positive, gave suggestions, showed their concerns, made some recommendations and hopefully, at the end of the day, some amendments which will strengthen this piece of legislation.

I say to the minister, he is the minister in the position right now, but this says, if I can remember right, it started in 1996. I commend the government for the consultation process in this particular document. It is true. Many different groups, many different individuals today - I am sure when the minister speaks to conclude this he will talk about the groups and the individuals and the department, right through the line, who have been consulted, and been consulted effectively. Nobody will argue that, because the people they consulted knew it on the front lines. There are groups of people who deal with this on a regular basis. There are groups in housing who help people in housing in this Province. There are groups who are involved in the different programs, like Bridging the Gap and Opening Doors that the minister talked about just a few minutes ago, but he forgot to mention there was a freeze on people for the Opening Doors Program. He wouldn't bother to use that. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be thrown off track or diverted by the comments today from that minister because the truth is, every single member who stood up to that point were very constructive and very creative in their ways of expressing themselves on this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, to stick to the bill of what income support and employment support means for this Province and for the people in this Province - I do not have the numbers in front of me now, I say to the minister, but I know it is somewhere in the range of - people who are directly on income support at the time - 30,000 and 40,000 recipients as of today. I know it has changed a bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Fifty-seven. It is higher than I thought. It is a fair number, and we all know that. What our plan is as a people, as a Legislature, as the people who make the laws of the land, who tries to deal with this program, that this process of consulting with the people and the stakeholders has been ongoing since 1996. Is that right, Minister? Since1996, this program has been ongoing.

What we are seeing here today is a culmination of all of that process coming together in a piece of legislation that hopefully will tighten, make more efficient, so that the people who need this program in our Province, whom we have to be sensitive to, can say at the end of the day: yes, the system is more efficient. Yes, that it is there for us when we need it. Yes, the loopholes are closed. So whatever improvements can be made to this particular system - of course, we all know from dealing with cases individually, that there were a lot of problems, there were loopholes, there were efficiencies in the system. So, at the end of the day, we should be able to look at a person who needs this program, who really needs to avail of this program - as we said before, through no fault of their own - that the system is more efficient, is more timely.

I notice in some parts of this, especially in section 3, "Employment support programs and services include programs and services designed to (a) assist individuals to acquire the employment supports, skills and experience necessary to successfully prepare for, access and keep employment and to obtain access to job opportunities and training". That one, in itself - and this is the only point that I could agree with the minister on, when he stood to talk - that is the very point. That is the very essence of any group or any individual, to actually, at the end of the day, if he has the ability, and has the physical capability and the mental capability to go to a job, then that, I think, has to be the foundation of this entire program. If a person in this Province, in any part from Northern Labrador to the tip of the Avalon Peninsula, wants a job, wants to get into the workforce, wants to provide for his or her family, they have to be able to do it. If that foundation, if the underpinning of this whole program is to provide that opportunity, we support it wholly. We want to do anything we can to improve on that.

On job creation, I have to make a comment on this because I made a note of it while the minister was speaking. On job creation, just to give you a small example, yes, there is a Job Creation Program. There is another one this year. I have been criticized for it, members of the government have been criticized for it, we have all been criticized for it to a point. It is easy, I guess, to stand and criticize on job creation because it is short term and, of course, we are stuck with the sigma of the make-work projects of years ago and everything else, but it all comes back to this piece of legislation we are talking to today. There are people in this Province, Madam Speaker, when it comes to job creation again this year - and I am going to make some suggestions for job creation. To be constructive about it, we will make some suggestions that we think could help with job creation.

The reality is this: There are people I have sat and talked to, and I know there are members opposite who have talked to people in similar cases, who have worked all their lives - we certainly will not use any names in here, Mr. Speaker, but I will give you an example of a person - and people in the room can relate to it. A fifty-four year old lady in my district, worked all her life, had never been to social services, will not go there no matter what happens. That is what she said to her family. Her husband died a few years back. She still has a child at home, two more raised, fifty-four years old, a child left in high school. She got some work at home. She went to Nova Scotia this summer picking apples. She came back and was thirty hours short of qualifying for EI. She was not going to the social services department, did not want to; she figured she was close enough. So, this Job Creation Program got her to qualify for EI because she went that close to it and this Job Creation Program has done that for a lot of people. That is not just one case, that is reality. That is people who you sit and deal with every day, Mr. Speaker.

We use the word dignity in this House many times during this debate, and that was dignity. That was somebody who is willing, wants to work, is looking for work, and wants to provide for her family. She was not going there. So, when we talk about job creation - no, it is certainly not the answer. Certainly, we know that every day people stand up and use the word make-work, and piling rocks from one pile to another. Now I am going to make a couple of suggestions on job creation. I have used them before.

I hope that next year when we come back to this House of Assembly that the economy is growing, and the GDP is growing, and that we do not get the calls that we have all had when we have to talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs looking for some job creation money, that we do not get a call from the people like I just talked about. I hope that by this time next year there is no job creation because we will not need it. A couple of suggestions. For the last, I don't know the number of years, but I have been here nine years and year after year we have turned to Job Creation Programs. It is not because we wanted to, but because we were acting on what was ahead of us.

One suggestion is this: That it would be budgeted for; that we would all realize now, not the month before, after we get a snowfall, when people are up to their knees in snow, cutting brush again, and every year we are reminded of the same thing. That would do two things. First of all, it would address the situation up front; and, secondly, it would make job creation projects more constructive because we could say to the groups around the Province that are applying for these job creation programs - the fire departments, volunteer groups like Kinsmen or Lions Clubs and so on, hospitals, stadiums or whatever, all of these groups could put together a good, comprehensive, constructive, forward-looking plan that would make a good program, that would not be a last minute scurry around throughout their communities to say: What are we going to come up with for an idea for job creation, that would be constructive? And, we would give those groups who need those few dollars - and it is not a lot of dollars, overall, when you look at it for the Province. It is only in some pockets of the Province that we find this situation. We would give them the time and the foresight to come up with good constructive work that helps those volunteer groups. So we would be basically killing two birds with one stone, I guess, is the old saying. We would be helping those small groups throughout these communities help themselves - maybe a fire department needs some help with their building. There is nothing wrong with that. The brush cutting that is going on right now helps with safety and helps with tourism because, of course, beauty on our highways is constructive. There is noting wrong with that. The point is, if we gave them the time to think about it, and those small groups out there looking for $4,000 or $5,000 or $6,000 to help a fire department or so on, and at the same time help a person who needs two or three weeks work, what is wrong with doing it on a year's notice so that we could have some time to do it properly?

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree with the minister on one point - that is all, one point - that the economic policy has to be tied with social policy so that we can do things more constructively and, at the end of the day, as we speak and take our time with second reading on this particular piece of the bill, which is not controversial but is sensitive and has to be done properly, and as you look through thirty-five pages of a piece of legislation - I have not, in my nines years, picked up a piece of legislation that was so sensitive and thirty-five pages full of different parts of this bill and just throw it down and say I am not going to bother to speak today.

We will take our time in Committee, I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker. We will take our time in Committee and go through the thirty-five pages, step by step, section by section, and if people are comfortable, I say to the minister, and we can support it, which most are - 90 per cent I would say, right now, in going through each piece of this bill, I would say to the minister, we can go through each piece of it and be comfortable with most parts of it. It is progressive. It is moving in the right direction. Hopefully, it is going to be a plan we can all live with; but, at the same time, if there is 5 per cent of it that we can improve on, correct, make amendments to, well, let's do it. Let's co-operate on this particular piece of legislation. We will take our time in doing that and put forward some suggestions and concerns we have. I think that the minister would agree that Members of the House of Assembly have that unique experience, too, of dealing with people on the front lines.

I will close with that, Mr. Speaker because I know my time is up . I see a couple of minutes left, but I will be back to speak on Committee. The staff and the people in the districts, in the office in my district, the people on the front line, the workers, from the entire staff - I will not single out any part of the staff - at the offices where I work, I say to the minister, do the best job they can with what they have. There is no doubt about it. They are on the front lines. They know the circumstances as well as anybody, and they do a tremendous job of dealing with people on the front lines, because they are the ones who deal with it on a daily basis, and hopefully - and I know they have been a part of the entire consultation process.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know my time is up. I will just conclude by saying this: Those people who are on the front lines, in the staff around this Province, know this because they see it on a daily basis. I am sure, through their consultation and through their insight, that they will be contributing to this bill. I will certainly be supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and make some comments on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

I have listened with interest over the past number of days as this piece of legislation has been debated here in the House; certainly with some of the concerns that were raised by my hon. colleague for Waterford Valley and certainly by members on this side of the House, and all sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, because this is an issue that affects many, many people in our Province. It is certainly something that concerns us as members of the House.

If I were to look back over the years that I have been here, one thing that has taken up an immense amount of time is dealing with people who have to - through no choice of their own in many, many cases - resort to social assistance. It is certainly something that concerns us all on this side of the House. If there is some way of improving that system, some way of making it more accessible to the people who require the use of the social assistance system in this Province, in any way, shape or form that is going to improve that avenue, we certainly welcome that news on this side of the House.

As my colleagues have put forward, we are proposing looking at some amendments to this piece of legislation. While we are certainly pleased with the piece of legislation that has come forward, as I mentioned earlier, the hon. Member for Waterford Valley put forward many - almost a year ago now - raised concerns over this piece of legislation and the fact that we need to have some provisions put in place to, as I said, make the system more accessible. They have been brought forward and some of these concerns that have been raised by the critic are part of this legislation. We look forward to continuing with the debate and not to be in a rush, as the Minister of Mines and Energy alluded to earlier, that we are in any way, shape or form delaying this. This is something, Mr. Speaker, that affects every member of the House. As I said earlier, it is something that has been a constant in my district over the number of years that I have been here in the House and dealing with people who have - through no cause of their own.

I would like to touch on a few things if I could, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with people on a day-to-day basis on the front lines - as my colleague for Baie Verte just touched on - these people who are out in the offices, throughout the constituencies and dealing with people on the front lines need to be commended, because as in most cases, you can only do the trade with what tools you have. In many cases the tools are not there for these people to assist and bring forward the availability of the programs to the different people throughout the Province. Sometimes because of money shortages, we find that many clients are very stressed out and very concerned with the fact that the local office is unable to take care of their needs or to assist them in some ways. It ends up right back to the minister's office, in some cases. We find that we cannot give these people the requirements they need, for the simple reason that the tools are not in place to do that. The tools usually comes down to the amount of money that is available, Mr. Speaker.

We all know, since 1992, the changes that have happened in Newfoundland and Labrador; the changing fishery and the downturn in the fishery. We have had people who have gone to social assistance, in some cases, for the very first time. I remember a case a few years back, Mr. Speaker, when I got a telephone call from a gentleman who was fifty-one years of age. He had three children and had never been to social assistance in his life. It was just that circumstances did not allow him - he was not able to avail of employment at the time. He called me up and was very disturbed, as a matter of fact, because he had to resort to social assistance. He just did not have what it took to go down to the local office. He was very concerned about the fact of the stigma that was attached in some places in the community. It was something that he was very, very uncomfortable with but knowing full well that he had three children there and his wife, he had no choice. Through the jigs and the reels we got him straightened out on that and made life a little bit easier at the time. I am very pleased to report, a few months after that the man managed to get work with a construction company here in St. John's and has been doing quite well ever since. As a matter of fact, he paid back the dollars he received from social assistance at the time. Over the three month period that he needed it, he paid it back. We were very pleased to be able to help him out on that.

Concerns have been raised, as I said here in the House before, about the youth of our Province. There are parts of this legislation that refer to the youth, and we are very pleased to see that because as most people know, Mr. Speaker, the youth are very important here in the Province. I had the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education on her feet today talking about Memorial University and the post-secondary education institutions here in the Province.

I brought forward a concern, which I brought forward last week, that 51 per cent of new applicants to the social assistance caseload in this Province for 2001 were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. That is a glowing statistic that we all should be concerned about. For the simple reason, if our youth find that they cannot get the foundation they need to get that lift up, to get out into the workforce and to start contributing to society, Mr. Speaker, it is a concern for all of us here. To see numbers like that concerns not only me, on this side of the House and I am sure my colleagues, but everyone here in the House. I think that we need to take a serious look at the youth in the Province and to bring in legislation that certainly helps them out, and if that has to do with RESPs, if that has to do with student loans, if that has to do with tax credit, whatever avenue we need to find to deal with that, we need to find that avenue and to start exercising our right here in the House to let people avail of those programs and make life a lot easier, because if we do not create the foundation, especially for our youth in this Province, we are going to have a job to build on that.

We hear ministers and former ministers talk about jobs and growth. We have a GDP growth in this Province, and in most cases it is because of our oil and gas industry, but it is not trickling down to people in many parts of the Province with regard to real jobs.

In this area here, the Metro area, in St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, Mr. Speaker, there is growth. There are jobs happening. There is construction here in this area, but if you go outside into rural Newfoundland, in many parts of rural Newfoundland, because of the closedown of the fishery - I do not have to go any farther than my own district to see that - we have situations where there is very little employment opportunities, very little opportunities for people to get that leg up, as we say, very little opportunity for people to find a job within their own community, within their own area. I do not think anybody expects to have a fish plant in every community providing employment, or an industry in every community providing employment, but at least if it was within distance that is acceptable to people who we do not have to travel over hours and hours to work, if they could live in these communities and work somewhere in close proximity to that, I think it would be comfort.

It is sad to see, when you travel around many parts of rural Newfoundland, that there is a concern in a few years time - right now, in my own area, we have a crab fishery, a very productive crab fishery in many case, that is providing ample income to many people, but we have concern with the fish plants, we have concern that the jobs are not being created on the land in relation to the fishery as it did years ago with the cod fishery. It is not spilling out into the communities as it did, and that certainly raises concerns with us. We have to look at ways of trying to improve that and try to create a reasonable balance where people in the areas avail of the fish industry that is there, avail of the tourism industry that is there, avail of any industry that is within their own area and within close proximity to where they live, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have to look at the differences - as I touched on youth before - when it comes to being a student from rural Newfoundland or being a student from urban Newfoundland and the concerns that come with that, and certainly the extra costs that come with that. I think that is something we certainly need to look at.

We have to try and find ways to let these people to be contributing members of society and I think we can only do that by giving them a bit of dignity. Through this piece of legislation, we hope to address some of that and to create a level of dignity in people. The fact that they have to resort to social assistance is not something that many people are proud of, but many people do not have much of a choice.

We see that over a ten-year period we had over 50,000 Newfoundlander leave this Province. We ask ourselves: How many would stay if there was a job? I am sure that the underlying factor here is that in many cases in rural Newfoundland it is the lack of employment opportunities. We certainly have to find ways of dealing with that.

Each year we find, as we find this year again, that we are back to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs trying to seek some type of job creation employment program. I am very pleased to see that the government has once again come forward with something this year, but having enough to address the concerns that are out there, even in my own district, is a major concern. Right now, I have several people in my own district who do not have enough hours to qualify for EI in the coming winter, a couple of weeks before Christmas. It is a grave concern with these people. It is something that the minister has looked at. We received some money in the district, but we have to try to find something of a long-term benefit, and not something that we end up having to deal with cutting brush on the side of the road now that winter is on us, and trying to do that and use the small amount of dollars that are available. If we had these programs starting in September, we would be able to do much more work in a much easier period of time, plus, I think, at a much reduced cost.

We find ourselves now, through the short days and the winter months that we have to deal with, that these programs, in some cases, are creating a lot of difficulty for people out there who like to say, at the end of the day, that we have provided a service, whether it is brush cutting, or whether it is something within the community itself. At the end of the day, the people like to say that they have provided a service, and certainly contributed to society in some way. We have to be very careful of that.

Another glaring statistic that we find is that 85 per cent of people on social assistance are going to food banks in this Province. Mr. Speaker, that is certainly another grave concern that we have and that has been expressed not only by members on this side but throughout the House. When you have 85 per cent of the people on social assistance who have to go to food banks, again, we ask ourselves: Are these people out there on social assistance receiving enough to keep body and soul together? We have to ask ourselves, as an example, a single, able-bodied man living with relatives receives $96 a month. A single, able-bodied man living with non-relatives receives $140 a month, and a single, able-bodied man, a person maintaining their own household, Mr. Speaker, receives $203 a month to cover incurring costs. It has to be very difficult. We understand, in some cases, as in all programs of all levels of governments, there is abuse of the programs. There are people, in some cases, who maybe should not be availing of the program who are. We always run into those problems but the fact is that there are people out in our communities who, through no fault of their own, have no choice but to have to go on social assistance. When they find themselves having to go on social assistance and find that the amount of dollars that they receive is pittance towards what they require to live a half decent life is certainly what concerns us on this side of the House.

We have to look at people with disabilities, and I am glad to see that part of this legislation will touch on and hopefully improve the needs of people with disabilities, but then we have programs throughout our Province over the past number of years where we have people with disabilities who have gone out and have been matched up with an employer. The department pays for these people to go out, for a helper, an assistant, to go out and be with that person who is disabled and assist them in the workforce, and we find that this year government wants to save $260,000 from that program. What this is doing, in a lot of cases, is that it is taking the disabled person who is out there working and putting them in a very precarious situation because if they do not have an assistant to do that work and help them with that work, they are not going to be able to go out into the workforce and do it. So, we have to be cognizant of the fact that, for some reason or other, the government wants to save $260,000. They are going to make major, major problems for this program.

I recently met with a group in my own district, Genesis, in Placentia, Mr. Speaker, and they raised the concern. There was one lady there who assists a couple of young fellas who go out and do lawn care. You know, we have gasoline mowers and gasoline whipper snippers and everything else that these people are out using, and they need the assistance of the helper. Now we find that the government, for some reason or other, are going to start taking back some of this money or wanting to save some of this money, I should say, Mr. Speaker - for some reason or other they are doing that - and what is going to happen now is that the person who is disabled and the person who has been part of that program, the client, the person who we all should be concerned about, that this legislation is supposed to be all about, is not going to be able to avail of that for the simple reason that he lacks that assistant. I think it is something, for the sake of $260,000, you know, that is going to disrupt this program - and a very positive program at that, Mr. Speaker - a program that has worked very well with disabled people throughout the Province, that has created employment opportunities.

You go out to the Sobeys store in Placentia, and we have a young fellow there who is working every day with the help of an assistant and doing wonderful, doing absolutely wonderful there in the workforce, once again contributing to society, having that dignity of getting up and having a job to go to in the morning, having that dignity and the self-satisfaction that comes with knowing that he is contributing to society. I think it is important that we find - when we talk about $260,000, it is not a lot of money in relation to keeping this program alive. We find that right across the board there are concerns with this. The concerns have been raised with the different ministers in relation to people who are disabled in the Province. I think if we play our cards right we could come up with this necessary money to keep this program alive. It is a program that I think that government needs to try to keep alive, whatever way possible; realizing the constraints that are on government at certain times.

This program is something that is positive, it is assisting these people in being contributing members of society and something that we all - I think throughout our own district, throughout all the districts, because I believe, if memory serves me correctly, the people I met with advised me that this is going on throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is something that we all need to avail of.

We talk about $260,000 and, yes, it is a large amount of money, there is no doubt about that, but when you think about spending $30,000 a week on a campaign, Mr. Speaker, telling us that good things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, we look at that and say, for nine weeks of campaign ads we could keep this very necessary program going with the disabled in this Province, Mr. Speaker. It is a program that we all think - I am sure, in every district, we know of examples of where this program is working and working successfully. When you look at a $30,000-a-week campaign ad, multiply it by nine weeks, and the government wants to save $260,000 and take back $260,000 out of that program, I would say it is a shame on the government for doing that to these disabled people in this Province. I think it is something that you need to have a look at. Hopefully, through this House here today, and through the different members bringing this forward, raising the concerns with the different ministers, that it is something that we can all look at.

Mr. Speaker, I refer back, if I could, for a few moments again, to the youth of the Province. I am very concerned. I have many, many people in my own district who find it very difficult, in cases, to be eligible for income and employment support. Hopefully this program - we are waiting on regulations, I say to the minister, and it is hard to know. While there is no doubt about it, that we have many situations here in this piece of legislation, many concerns in this piece of legislation that are the concerns of people out in the Province, that are being addressed through this piece of legislation, we also have a concern, Mr. Speaker, about the regulations that are to follow. We really do not know the definition of some of these regulations and the concern, Mr. Speaker, that these people have in this Province - hopefully, the regulations will be something that we come to be able to deal with.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation. I have found myself many, many times having to deal with people who are forced onto social assistance for the first time. As I spoke on earlier, the dignity of these people is certainly something that we need to look at. Something that the people of this Province need to be able to say, Mr. Speaker, is how support is granted, under what conditions it is granted, and what a person has to go through, Mr. Speaker, in order to avail of this assistance. I think we are talking, in many cases, about the poorest people in the Province, the people who have a desire to do better, a desire to find work where is it possible.

As I said to somebody earlier today, it is easy to stand, it is easy for the Minister of Mines and Energy to stand in his place and to say that anybody who wants work can find work. That is not necessarily the case, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of different angles to different situations. Not everybody can pack a suitcase and move. It is not everybody who can move to the Mainland or move to other parts of the Province and find work. We have situations in regard to people's physical ability in some cases to be able to do that and it is something that we have to look at.

There is not a WAL-MART in every community, Mr. Speaker, and an opportunity for people to go and find the work that they need to be able to assist and add to their way of life. Therefore, we have a situation here, through this piece of legislation, where, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to dictate to offices throughout the Province a better way, a better system, of dealing with the people who are forced on social assistance in this Province, an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, where these people will be able to avail of these programs and, hopefully, they will be able to find a better way of life through this program, if they find themselves -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, just for a minute to finish up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker. I hope that, through this piece of legislation, the people who are most needy in this Province find a way of accessing this program easier, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we will find ways of creating employment opportunities and not have people, for some reason or another, end up on social assistance, and that the employment opportunities will be the number one priority of this government over the next little while. We look forward to hearing the initiatives of this government in relation to creating jobs in this Province, and not necessarily in relation to finding excuses for not creating it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope all these hon. members are about to move to my district, because it is good to see the introduction and I certainly thank them for the applaud.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) his maiden speech, his first speech.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Barrett, I appreciate that.

I would first like to speak on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province. I came from an MP's office, as a lot of people in my district know, and certainly human resources and employment was a major concern. I was touched by numerous stories I have heard throughout the years.

I know the Minister of Mines and Energy suggested a little while ago that we were probably wasting time on this. Well, I want to say to the minister, there were quite a number of people who suggested that I run for this position, and I can assure him that I will be having my say. I am going to put all members on notice, that the people of my district will be represented when bills arise and want me to speak on them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: The district of the Member for Topsail is a neighboring district of mine, so we share a number of the same concerns from both our districts. I want to congratulate him on bringing in this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: There are some good initiatives in this bill, I say to the minister. I like the idea of having someone on the Appeals Board, that is certainly a good initiative, and there is the extension of the drug program for six months after somebody is employed. I also believe this is a good program.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when I see child poverty at 26 per cent, the highest in the country, and the employment rate at 17.1 per cent, the highest in the country, I think it is long time that we had some movement on bills such as this.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues that have bothered me down through the years and bothered people in my constituency. One, of course, is dentures, something as simple as dentures that a lot of us in this House would probably take for granted. In order to get a set of dentures, you have to have employment, number one, or you have to be going to further your education. I say to all members in this House, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the degradation when you go for an interview with no dentures, and here you are trying to get a job with that company? I suggest it is good policy to have that in place long before you go seeking employment.

I also want to speak a little bit about the drug card. Like I said, I want to compliment the minister on the extension for six months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: There is a fine line, Mr. Speaker, that a. lot of times people who are employed on low income certainly do not make it over that threshold. They go for months and months and months without medication simply because they are that small, twenty dollar bill under that level. That is very sad. There are children in this Province suffering because of it, and it is something that should be addressed.

I heard numerous speakers say earlier throughout the debate that people could not get furniture, could not get washers and dryers. I also know of a story, Mr. Speaker, from the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island - a call I have had since I have been in this House, actually - where a young lady, who is currently pregnant, has to carry her laundry to her neighbour's house to do the laundry, or else go to a laundromat. That is totally unacceptable in today's world. It certainly should not be happening and it is very, very sad when we see that happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the last and the most important item, I believe I have, and this refers to both myself and the minister's districts, the minister has the privilege of having the office of Human Resources and Employment in his district. The problem we have is not with the social workers or the client service officers. They have been doing a remarkable job. Their caseloads are unbelievable. The minister likes to talk about numbers like the caseloads are decreasing. Well, the minister should know that in both our districts there is no decrease in the numbers. As a matter of fact, they have stayed calm. They go up a little bit seasonally but they stay the course. They certainly have not decreased.

We have people going into the offices consistently looking for support and looking for help. Unfortunately, there has been a clerical staff shortage in that office. One day last week there were only two out of the four people supposedly there working, simply because one was off on sick leave, I believe there was another on maternity leave, and there is no replacement for those people, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, there is maternity leave that has not been filled. Out of a staff of thirteen people, last week, there were six out of thirteen people in the office in the hon. member's district. There are people who are being affected: my constituents and the minister's constituents opposite. I say, if that is happening in the minister's own office, Mr. Speaker, then certainly there are some other offices around this Province in very rough shape.

I believe now, Mr. Speaker, it is about 5:29 p.m. If I could ask at 5:30 p.m. to adjourn debate?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we will take a recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If I may conclude, I will just be a couple of minutes on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

Mr. Speaker, if I may just tell a little story about a gentleman who is from my district originally, who was injured in a car accident some years ago. He has been in a wheelchair, I guess, for some twenty-four or twenty-five years.

When we talk about the legislation, does it go far enough? Here is a story where I do not believe the legislation does go far enough to address some of the needs of the people to take advantage of Human Resources and Employment.

This gentleman has been confined to a wheelchair for some twenty-four or twenty-five years now and, because of his condition, he is slouched in his wheelchair quite a bit. We all know, and certainly we have all had calls numerous times, that this does not affect - it will not fund chiropractic care and it certainly will not fund massages, Mr. Speaker, but it helps this gentleman sleep in the night, actually; the pain is decreased. His family took it upon themselves to have some chiropractic services donated and he did manage to fund some small measure of the massages. The problem was his transportation to and from the clinic where this was offered. Mr. Speaker, this was a measly $10 a week - $10 a week - and, because of the lack of flexibility in the legislation, there was nothing that anybody could do for him. I thought that was very, very sad. Eventually he did manage to come up with the $10 a week, but it certainly was not because of the legislation the way it is, or Human Resources and Employment. These are the kinds of stories that sadden me, Mr. Speaker, and sadden the people of my district as well.

Just to get back to the delivery of service again, this bill certainly does not address the issue of whether or not there are enough social workers in our system today. Like I responded to just before the break, here we are in our Manuels office working on a 50 per cent reduction of staff. Certainly, these people are busy as it is. We certainly do not have a declining number of cases in Conception Bay South, Holyrood, Topsail, and Harbour Main-Whitbourne. The gentleman here from Harbour Main-Whitbourne is in a very similar situation. Certainly we cannot expect these client service officers - they can only put so many through in the run of day, Mr. Speaker, and this is why we have to wait sometimes for weeks on end. We all get the calls - all of the members in this House get the calls - of people waiting for three days, four days and five days just to get an application processed. That is very, very sad.

If I may end on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and just remind the people in this House, and particularly the minister, that employment incentives make little difference if the working poor are still better off on social assistance, and that is something we really have to strive for, Mr. Speaker, to assist the working poor every way we possible can.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just rise today to, I guess, offer some comments related to the bill presented by the hon. the Minister of Human Resources.

I believe in his opening comments he talked about how this particular piece of legislation was long overdue, that it replaces an act that dates back to the mid-1950s - 1957, I think he said - 1977, where there were some amendments made - sorry - and that the spirit and intention of the bill were designed, I suppose, to give those people who find themselves in a situation where, through no fault of their own, they are in need of the assistance of the government in terms of income support dealing with the position they find themselves in their lives.

Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the commentary offered by the Minister of Mines and Energy today, the best social safety net that any government could provide, or that a society could provide, is not income support but a job, an opportunity for individuals within our Province to live and work and prosper within Newfoundland and Labrador; the types of opportunities that must be created so people can, number one, have access to a quality education, affordable education, irrespective of where they live, that it would provide equal access to the type of building blocks that any individual in our society needs in terms to progress.

Mr. Speaker, any province, or any place in the world for that matter, will be judged by the opportunities it provides to everybody who lives in that province, how we maximize the resources that we have - the God-given resources that we have within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - how we maximize those, how we exploit those for the benefit of everybody, not just in taxes, not just in royalties, but in terms of any transfer of technology or existing skill set that does not exist in the Province today, but how we can bridge that and teach that to each and every person in the Province so that we can continue to build and continue to grow our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is no person in this Legislature today who has not dealt with some disturbing types of situations within their own districts where people, individuals, have fallen through the cracks as a result of situations that they have found themselves in.

Mr. Speaker, from our point of view, this is a piece of legislation that we generally support. Second reading is our opportunity to talk about the general principles outlined in the bill, how we see that and how we will judge that. I guess before the House closes we will deal with the clause-by-clause debate where we will have some specific opportunity to make some amendments.

There are some things that need to be addressed in the bill, in my view. One of these, certainly, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and I talked about just this afternoon, dealing with the notion of somebody who is on, or who has required some assistance from the department. I believe it was the hon. Government House Leader, in a former life as the former Minister of Social Services in 1994, who introduced the, I guess, social services police officers, if you will, if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) welfare cops.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is important.

In looking at some of the debates that occurred around that amendment to the bill at the time, the rationale was there that this measure is being put in place so that those who need it should get it and those who do not need it, who are not being forthright, direct or honest with the system, should not get it. That legislation passed.

I will give you a case in point in terms of what I am talking about in terms of the issue itself. Recently, I had a call from a woman with two children, whose marriage had broken up. She was living in the district that I represent, in the District of Kilbride, where she had begun another relationship with somebody else. There are personal privacy issues here that need to be dealt with. She was called and asked: Do you have a relationship ongoing with somebody? Is this person living with you? The threat of big brother, of the government, watching the personal lives of somebody unfold because they are on the system, I think, leaves a lot to be desired; the threat of losing that support, that much needed support that is the difference between themselves and providing for their families that evening, but that is an issue within the bill that we can certainly deal with in clause-by-clause.

One of the things that I like about the bill, generally speaking, is that it aims to provide people with a hand up, not necessarily a hand out, and provide for people who are in need of assistance on the one hand but at the same time provide some encouragement and provide some incentives to those individuals themselves to better themselves and get off the system.

Mr. Speaker, I guess one of the big things in terms of reform with the bill - I am not going to take up too much time on this, this evening. I believe I am the last speaker on this side and we will move and let the minister close debate in second reading and at the appropriate time the Government House Leader, whenever he sees fit, will call for Committee stage and will get into, I guess, the bowels of the bill, the details of the bill, which are really important.

The other side I would like to talk about for a second, too, is the associated regulations that will become attached to the bill. Regulations are not something that are debated frequently, if at all, in the House when we are dealing with legislation, but it is in the regulations where we will see the implementation of this bill and the measures and the aspirations of what is contained in this bill, and the principles that this bill stands upon. It is in the body of associated regulations that are passed afterwards, through Cabinet, where we will see if this bill really works.

What we are saying, I suppose, is that this is conditional support that we offer on this side of the House for this particular piece of legislation. Conditional because we believe generally in the principles that are outlines, many of which we have espoused ourselves. In the clause-by-clause debate sections of the bill we will have specific questions to the minister, but conditional in this sense: that it will be a year, maybe a little less, before we will see if the aspirations so articulately outlined by the Minister of Human Resources when he presented the bill, and the principles on which he outlined them - will they be implemented? - and the body of rules and regulations associated with this particular act will define if the implementation of this bill will be a success or a failure, Mr. Speaker.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments, take my seat, and let the minister close debate on second reading, and say to him that we are looking forward to the clause-by-clause debate and possibly some amendments to specific clauses where we will see - in our view, I think, and have a chance to debate that - possible ways to strengthen certain aspects of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is really about providing a legislative legal framework to assist us with clients and to help them to reach their independence. I certainly have been listening with some intent to some of the comments that have been made here in the House for the last three days. It is fair to say that, I guess, these comments are no different from the comments that we heard during the consultation process, but I must say that I am pleased with the response that I am getting from members opposite and should say, for the record, that if they do have some amendments it would certainly be worthwhile if they could see time to probably present them to me before we actually get into the Committee stage. As we know, any time we change words in a legal framework they sometimes change the whole outcome of what we are about to get. I would appreciate very much if they would be so kind as to present to me those amendments so that we can take a look at them and come to some agreement if we possibly can.

There were a number of issues raised, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to go into any great length about the issues that were raised. We all know that here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we face many challenges. Income support, employment support, is one of them. My department, I guess, is dealing with people who are - the final answer to people in need is the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

One of the issues, Mr. Speaker, that was raised was the issue of poverty. I have said, as minister, time and time again, that if there is one child in poverty it is one child too many. Whether it is one in five in a country or one in four in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is too many. None of us want to see any child living in poverty.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I heard most recently my colleague from Conception Bay South, in his maiden speech, I believe, refer very factually about the 26 per cent here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I did have a discussion with my hon. critic from Waterford Valley who had raised the same issue, knowing full well that as the number of children drop in this Province - and we do have a declining population in children - the percentages go up. It is worthy to note, Mr. Speaker, that the information that they base their comments on was back in 2000. The fact of the matter is that, in the year 2000 we had 1,000 children less in poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador than we did in 1999.

Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward and we believe that the programs that we have brought in are having an impact on children: the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit and the Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement. Mr. Speaker, we were the first Province in the country not to deduct from income support the Canadian Child Benefit, so we are moving forward.

As you know, the National Council on Welfare - welfare income, as they call it; we do not want to call it that here in Newfoundland - we are changing the way that we talk about it. We talk about it as income support so that we can have more dignity to what we are doing here, more respect. They did a report across the country, Mr. Speaker, and guess what? Here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with single-parent families, we were the highest of all the provinces in terms of income support. For a two-parent family, we were fourth in all the provinces in the country. We have had a decline of children on social assistance families. In 1997 we had some 32,800. Today, Mr. Speaker - not today - in 2001, we were down to 23,000 children, a drop of some 29.9 per cent while the child population only dropped by some 13.5 per cent. We believe that it is partly explained by the impact of the programs that we have introduced.

Statistics of 2001 indicate that 1,635 cases with children left income support, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MANNING: Where did they go?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I will tell the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's where they went. Twelve hundred and sixty-one of them, 77 per cent, Mr. Speaker, left for earnings. They went to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: So when we stand in this House and we talk about poverty and the impacts that the programs are having, the facts, Mr. Speaker, speak for themselves, and we believe that the programs are working.

Mr. Speaker, people have talked about the rates. We admit that the rates are not - it is difficult for people on income support. We recognize that; but, Mr. Speaker, this bill guarantees by law that these rates will be reviewed every three years. We recognize the challenges that people have on income support. We, too, have challenges also, as a government.

When you think about it, Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990s the income support programs of government were costing some $108 million. In 2002-2003 it cost some $257 million. So, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to wonder where the money is going. We are paying it out for these programs, where people have to have support.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it was raised here about furnishings. We have set aside in the department some $500,000 to address needs related to household equipment. While it is not possible to address all the needs, Mr. Speaker, these address emergency requirements.

We work co-operatively with representatives of persons of victims of violence so that we can respond more flexibly to these people, to the immediate safety needs for the persons and for their families.

In terms of employment, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about active support to assist persons with overcoming barriers to participate fully in the labour market and achieve their potential.

I have always looked on with great admiration for people with disabilities. Through the employment corporation, Mr. Speaker, we have assisted some 1,800 clients who are serviced through the employment corporation; 510 of these clients are employed.

This year I, as minister, invested some $300,000 over and above what was budgeted so that we could employ more people with disabilities. We are actively working with the federal government to ensure that they can come up with more monies to help us carry on with this program.

People opposite talked about employment for youth. Mr. Speaker, we are doing well in terms of helping youth in this Province. They are working through the Linkages Program, the NewfoundJOBS program, Employment Generation Program, Seasonal Employment Program, Graduate Employment Program, the SWASP program and Level I, II and III Student Employment Program. Mr. Speaker, the students in this Province are doing well. Young people are beginning to move forward. They are beginning to look at the future. For those people who have not made it through school we are actively working with them to do an assessment of their skills so we can help them upgrade and make a significant contribution to society.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on this evening because I know we want to get to the clause by clause debate on the act itself. I want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised by members opposite of the specific regulations. I just want to tell them that these regulations will respect the spirit of the act. As the act is being streamlined we will certainly want to streamline the regulations also to make sure that it is written in plain language for everybody to understand.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to acknowledge the great work of the employees of HRE. They do good work everyday. They work hard. My colleague from Conception Bay South raised the issue up there in Conception Bay South where he says that we have some people off sick. I can tell the hon. member that it is not new to this Province, but we do have a hiring freeze on as a measure in this Province. I treat my district, as minister, no differently than any other district in the Province. I can tell you, and I have always said publicly - and I have been around since 1989 - that I have never had a problem in my district, the District of Topsail, or in the District of Conception Bay South, that was not resolved to my satisfaction. It may not have always been done to the client's satisfaction, but I can assure you, there was no stone left unturned to satisfy that particular client. I can also tell you that I have not received one call from any individual in Topsail, or Conception Bay South, complaining that they were not getting services.

To the hon. Member for Conception Bay South, if you have a problem, I would be only too glad to take a call from you. I can tell you that the services delivered by my department are superb.

I want to thank all members of the House for their comments. I want to especially thank those people who took part in the consultation and gave us their views. You can tell by the bill that we listened to what they had to say and we have acted. What they said has appeared in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 23.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 23)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, To Move that the House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. Bill 8.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is nice to see the warm support here for Supplementary Supply.

Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: This message is dated April 25, 2002.

To the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2002. 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.

Sdg.:

A.M. House, Lieutenant-Governor

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I am pleased to introduce into the House this evening the supplementary bill for the fiscal year 2001-2002. This Supplementary Supply Bill provides for the legal authority for the provision of funding over and above -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are we going into Committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: We are going into Committee? Okay.

The hon. the minister recommends that we go into Committee.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I move that we move into Committee of the Whole.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that the message, along with the Estimates, be referred to the Committee of the Whole on Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 8, 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, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

When everybody clapped, I just assumed that this was all acceptable and we were moving right along, so now I will continue on with my comments.

This Supplementary Supply Bill provides for the legal authority for the provision of funding over and above that which was provided in the original budget. The bill summarizes nine special warrants issued during the 2001-2002 fiscal year, totalling $51,016,800.

Interestingly enough, I will take a bit of time, Mr. Chair, to go through the special warrants and to speak to them, because I think there is a very interesting trend and I just wanted to do little bit of a historical review here. The trend, I say to the members opposite, is that the number of special warrants has declined significantly since the 1980s, particularly. For example, in 1983-1984 there were thirty-two special warrants passed in this House of Assembly. In 1984 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, history does include going back a number of years, I say to the Member for Kilbride. When you give a historical overview, you tend to go back a few years by definition.

I would say in 1984-1985 there were forty-one special warrants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can get, actually, what was before Confederation, I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, as a point of interest, but I will stick to the 1980s for now and carry on into the 1990s.

In 1985-1986 there were twenty-five special warrants. In 1986-1987 there were thirty special warrants. In 1987-1988 there were thirty-three, and in 1988-1989 there were forty-four special warrants.

Today, I am speaking to the nine special warrants before the House, and I wanted to take a little bit of time to go through the special warrants and how, in fact, special warrants have been issued under section 28 of the Financial Administration Act.

This subsection of the Financial Administration Act permits the use of special warrants when the Legislature is in session and, obviously, it must be for a continuing service. I will speak to those, and I think all listening will absolutely see the importance of special warrants as it relates to the kinds of service that we present in this Province to the people we all represent.

Particularly in the Health and Community Services, the special warrants in the amount of $17 million were identified to provide additional funds for health care facilities. Many of those health care facilities and renovations are of such a critical nature that they were certainly deemed urgent by definition of government. They relate to a number of items around life safety issues: fire alarm systems, asbestos, and there are all sorts of different rationale for doing this.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will say to my critic from Ferryland, I am sure he will have an opportunity to speak to these but I would like to enlighten him to some of the rationale that we have used in our decision making here, because all members would know, all people listening, that special warrants are identified through the various departments. They are identified as urgent in providing the necessary funding that was not previously identified through the Budget.

For example, in St. Patrick's Mercy Home, fire and life safety improvements. In Glenbrook, security system upgrade. Just to give an example, in Carbonear General Hospital, there was an asbestos cleanup allocation. There was fire and life safety work done on the fourth floor of that facility as well as OR ventilation and emergency repairs required.

Certainly, anyone listening would identify these as important and necessary to be done. In the Harbour Lodge, for example, in Carbonear, roof repairs and, again, ventilation into the smoke room which was considered, as we believe, quite necessary.

I can go on through a number of other facilities. For example, in the Peninsula's Health Care Corporation region there were air quality assessments done at the regional site. In Clarenville, renovations to the day surgery and operating room flooring replacement which was again considered necessary for the operation of the facility so that the various procedures could be conducted.

In Burin, there were life safety issues. This was again deemed necessary. In Central Newfoundland - then I will speak somewhat to the actual amount of money that we have spent on various types of new equipment. I think, also, it is important to refer to some of those pieces. For example, in Central Newfoundland Hospital, Grand Falls-Windsor, renovations for renal dialysis, again a commitment made by this government, one that we see as very important, and again one that was necessary to be done in a timely manner. Roof repairs to the Green Bay Health Centre in Springdale and fire panel replacement were certainly things of an urgent nature. In Western Memorial, again we approved allocation for the board to do roof repairs. We also provided funding for diagnostic imaging materials and also, for example, in St. Anthony, completed roof repairs and fire and life safety improvements in that facility. In Health Labrador as well we had an allocation there of $200,000 for repairs and renovations to that facility.

That is just to give an example of some of the kinds of information, I think, that people need to be able to realize the importance of these kinds of allocations.

Another special warrant for Health and Community Services relates to the $10 million which provides additional funds for our occupational reclassifications. Again, these are very important. I think all would agree that the various groups who work in our sector to provide health services provide very important work, and acknowledge that a lot of their reclassifications, when they came due, amounted to an increase in allocation. For example, Licensed Practical Nurses received $1.9 million in their reclassification; NAPE and CUPE laboratory and X-ray classes, for example, received just about $6 million in their reclassification; in the Allied Health Professionals group, $1.3 million; and for other various groups there was another $1.2 million, including social workers and general service support workers, allocations that were made to provide those kind of necessary increases based on reclassification, an amount we feel is quite important.

I think, more important than all, and I think just about anybody listening would realize the importance of our drug programs as it relates to our seniors' program as well as those on income support and the importance of the thousands of prescriptions that are filled every year to provide pharmaceuticals and drugs to those who need them.

In the case of our drug program, there was a special warrant written for $6.3 million, over and above what we already spend, to provide drugs for those two client groups. For our seniors, we provided an extra $3.3 million, and for those receiving income support an additional $3 million.

This is an important note to make: in addition to the amount of money we provide in our major program area for drugs and for pharmaceuticals, which my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, administers via the various boards, there is quite a growing need for increased drug programs. As you know, we do not tell people you can only have so many prescriptions and after so many visits you cannot get any more drugs. You have to have an ability to keep a somewhat open system, because people do not plan when they get sick. They cannot plan on what drugs they will need through this program, so we make no apologies for increasing the amount of money through a special warrant for this kind of allocation.

Speaking, then, to education and the special warrants that were allocated there, a special warrant of $10 million was there to provide additional money for teachers' salaries and, also, we provided extra money to the Education Investment Corporation for allocations toward renovations and the building of new schools for the children in our Province. Again, a very worthwhile initiative and an allocation that we believe was money well spent.

Another major allocation area would cover Justice. Again, we provided special warrants in the Department of Justice for additional funds for legal aid and related services, recognizing that these are 100 per cent recoverable from the federal government. Again, these are services that people who are in need of legal services require when they are not able to pay for their own services. We hear every day the need for more legal aid, and when the need arises you cannot very well say to somebody, who is innocent until proven guilty, that they are not able to avail of legal aid because there was no additional money available. So, the additional funds were provided and, as a result of that, in combination with the occupational reclassifications for those who work in the Justice system, as well as the purchase of digital court recording equipment - and this was a recommendation that came forward as one very critical to the ability to deliver justice and to provide the necessary equipment so that these court proceedings could be taped, not only for historical purposes but also for the judges and the various other support workers to make the proper kinds of decisions.

I would say, Mr. Chair, in relation to our special warrants, we are putting forward an allocation of $51 million. This, again, is in keeping with the Financial Administration Act. It is fully within the law of the land. It is something that has been done, as members opposite would remember just a few moments ago when I gave a historical overview back to the 1980s. Some members asked what we were doing in the 1950s and 1960s. I would be happy to provide that for them, in fact, if they wanted, or I would invite them to go to the library and research the information themselves.

It is also important to note that when a special warrant is issued, a minister must come forward, state the case, state its urgency, and it must be a continuation of existing funds. Through those existing funds, then through the Financial Administration Act, there is an ability to put that funding forward through special warrants to deliver the kinds of programs and services that I previously mentioned, through Health and Community Services, through Education, and through Justice. Again, this is in keeping with the rules of the Legislature. These have to be tabled in the House of Assembly in a public way, for all to see. This is information that, again, is readily available. I would say that over the number of years that I have sat in the House, and in researching the type of practices in the past, the number of special warrants really has decreased. In fact, if you go back, as I said earlier, twenty-six warrants were issued in 1986 and 1987 and now, in 2002, we have issued nine special warrants, totalling the $51 million. For government, this is a decision again that must be made based on the case that is brought forward by the various ministers. It is based on the fact that all of these allocations must be from a continuation of funds that are already put out there for various programs and services, like building our schools, like providing the funding for our health care facilities and our hospitals, and perhaps one of the more critical and most important is that related to the provision of our drug programs for those receiving income support and also for our seniors' programs.

We believe that this is a very important ability, to be able to provide the extra funding as it is required, and I would say without a doubt that these are very important, urgent issues, that we believe are very, very necessary in the grand scheme of providing services to any sector of our population.

I would say, in terms of the special warrants, I would encourage my colleagues also to speak to this because many of these allocations were specifically related to their own various areas that they represent on both sides of the House. They are ones that we believe are important, and I think it speaks to a much more accurate budgeting process when you can decrease the number of warrants from thirty, forty and fifty down to nine, and recognizing they are in some of our biggest departments that provide the biggest and the largest sector of public services, and ones that we deem to be very important.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these special warrants and to bring them forward to the House for approval.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister is trying to give the impression now, and deflect away from the real issue here at stake in this bill. What she is indicating, the number of warrants has been reduced. It is not the relevancy of the number of warrants. It is the relevancy of the urgency of a particular warrant. The number of warrants is not indicative. The dollar value associated with warrants is very important also, I say to the minister. She is trying to give us that impression. It is funny that the Auditor General does not agree with the minister. We do not agree with the minister.

It states here in the Financial Administration Act, section 28 - and I just want to make reference to it because this government has broken the law of the Province. They have broken the law, and the Auditor General said that. They have defied their own laws here in section 28. It says here, "Where, when the Legislature is not in session..." - out of the $51 million in this bill, $48,516,800 in special warrants were issued when this Legislature sat, which is a complete affront to the elected people here in our Province, and contravenes the Financial Administration Act.

Here is what it says, "Where, when the Legislature is not in session, or when the House of Assembly has been adjourned for more than 30 days, an expenditure not foreseen and not provided for by the Legislature in respect of a new service is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then, upon the report of the minister that there is no legislative provision and of the minister having charge of the new service in question that in his or her opinion the necessity is urgent, giving reasons for the opinion, and that where the expenditure is not made, grave damage to the interests of the Crown or the public will result from delaying that expenditure until the necessary legislative provision has been made, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on recommendation in writing to the board, order..." a special warrant.

What this minister did, when this House sat last March - $48.5 million out of the $51 million was signed by special warrants; of which I have each one here. March 15, 2002, in Justice an amount of $720,000. The next one, March 27, 2002, the Department of Justice issued a special warrant when this House was convened of $411,700. Another one on March 15, 2002 for an amount of $1,952,000, when this House sat. That is just in the Department of Justice.

Lets look at the Department of Health. When this House sat on March 22, last year, in contempt of this House, a special warrant was issued for services in the Department of Health; $820,000 and $10,133,000. Just a little later, again on March 27, in defiance of the very laws of the Province, this minister allowed another $14 million and $3.5 million to be issued when this House sat, and the House was not closed for thirty days.

This minister contravened the act in almost every, single instance while she was Minister of Finance and responsible for the Treasury of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Furthermore, other expenditures totaling $6.3 million.

On top of that, in the Department of Education, where grave damage would be done to the public if on March 27, dated and approved, money for the building of schools on March 27, when the House sat. Why didn't you come back the next week and ask the House to approve it here? Why did you do that? Why did you hide it and bring it back almost a year later to this House? They contravened the very act they swore to uphold. The only single one out of this $51 million that was passed and signed off when the House was not sitting was one - and this one goes back to September 18, 2001. That is what we have before us today, a warrant that was signed well over a year ago. Actually, almost a year-and-a-third ago this warrant was signed and never came to this House until just now, basically, for approval. This amount, the Trans-Labrador Highway capital, $300,000. Improvement of purchased services of capital roads, $2.2 million never came up last fall, last spring, basically. It never got called here to the House until now. That is the only one, this particular one - out of all of these particular ones that was signed when the House was not in session - which would comply with the time frame when the House is not in session. Then you have to determine: Was it urgently required? That is a whole new issue, and the minister tried to tell us: Look, we have reduced the warrants. You could issue fifteen for $10 million and then you could issue one for $100 million and we have reduced the number of warrants. Playing number games to try to deceive people. Leading them to believe there is an improvement.

Well, the Auditor General has a comment on that. This was tabled here by the very minister - right after the minister tabled the Public Accounts the Auditor General's report, the very same day, was tabled in this House. Here is what the Auditor General said for the year just ended. This was tabled the first day the House opened this fall. Here is what the Auditor General said, "Special warrants are used to make payments not approved in the original budget, thereby increasing Government expenditures and either increasing its deficit or decreasing its surplus."

He went on to say, "Since 1997..." - and that minister has been in this government ever since then. "Since 1997 my Office has expressed concern that many special warrants issued each year did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act as, in our opinion, they were not urgently required."

On March 27, not only were they not urgently required, minister, there was contempt for this House by not informing the House that they were signing off on $48 million when we sat in this very House. That is contrary to this act. Also, the Auditor General further says, "...they were not urgently required." So that is two counts. You broke the time frame, we advocate, and it is there in print for everybody to see and tabled in this House. The Auditor General says they were not urgently required.

He went on to say, "The use of special warrants provides Government with the flexibility to "adjust" its cash surplus or deficit and produce a result it desires." What they are doing is manipulating the finances to give a false picture to the people of this Province that we have a smaller deficit than we really have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what they are doing. It says special warrants - and she talks about special warrants issued in contravention of the act. Since 1997, in that year there was $36.9 million passed by this government without regard for the Legislature, and without regard for the laws of the Province. In 1998, $30.9 million; in 1999, $95 million - broke the laws of this Province - in 2000, $70.8 million; in 2001, $33 million; in 2002, $33.1 million, by the very person who is appointed to report on the financial, fiscal, accountability of this government, the Auditor General, and I take the Auditor General's word for it, and I think the people of this Province take the Auditor General's word for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister will probably stand up again and try to tell us, and she will go through each one: but we needed to do this for health care. Are you going to deny this to this person?

That is the line she is using. If you did not waste millions on advertising, if you did not mismanage many affairs of the government, you would have money to do these things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If you were not prepared to give big corporations the very, very lowest tax rate of any in the country, you would have more money for health care, I say to the minister. That is where you would have it. That is where you would have it, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Can the minister stand here and tell us today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for the Bay of Islands is getting very loquacious here. I wonder, can we tame him down a little? He will get an opportunity to exhibit his loquacity before this evening is out, if he wants to stand up and speak on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) blood pressure.

MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, you are the last one I would want to have looking after my blood pressure, I can tell you. I would not depend on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The blood pressure of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am sure, went up by twenty points when you were Minister of Health. Thank God you are not in that portfolio now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Because, I can tell you, the population of Newfoundland and Labrador would probably be gone down further. We would have less people to avail of various programs, I can tell you.

The minister stood here and told us a few minutes ago that $4 million that was signed off on March 27, there would be grave damage to the public good if this warrant was not signed on March 27, 2002, rather than coming back the next day, coming to this House and telling us: We need it, give us approval. That is what she said.

Was there grave damage to the public good if this was done? How grave a damage - if a warrant was signed in September, 2001, and only now it comes up for discussion here in this House, how concerned are they about the finances of this Province? How concerned are they about the accountability of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It says, the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation. We know there are great needs out there, and the minister has been using the line for the last year and a half. They are soon going to have to come up with a new line now - her communications people - and start using a new line other than: more money for health care. That is the line they use, the buzz word now, because the public will be right sensitive to that. You try to give an impression of what a great job you are doing by spending unwisely government money. If you spent it wisely you would have more money to do those things you want to do.

Sure, there are great needs out there, and sure, some of the monies allocated here - but they were not approved in compliance with the law. When the minister who presides over a department allows the law to be broken, allows an act to be broken - she said it here today. She said today that money for schools, there would be great damage, basically, when she said - if it was true - there would be great damage to the interests of the Crown or the public if we did not put that $4 million in there. That is one of the conditions in which a warrant should be issued; and, it says, the Legislature is not in session and closed for thirty days.

This was not the case with $48.5 million. That is absolutely wrong, what the minister said, and tried to pass it off and go down a check list of everything the money went for.

If there was a disaster here like September 11, and there were millions of dollars that had to be expended to deal with it, people would understand that is an urgent need for expenditure. If there was a forest fire in this Province and we needed fire suppression equipment here, urgently needed, and it was not budgeted - a massive fire, beyond normal budgetary expectations - we would see an urgent need and the Auditor General would see an urgent need, but the Auditor General did not see an urgent need.

You signed a warrant in March, to buy furniture for the Supreme Court. Is that an urgent need? Could they have sat on what they were sitting on for another week or two? Could they have come back to the Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Could they have used that chair, table or desk? Could they have used that? It is one thing, breaking the law, and it is another, getting permission to do something within the confines of the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. If you go seventy in a fifty-mile zone, you are breaking the law. If you go seventy in a 100-mile zone, you are not breaking the law. So, it is where you carry on the act, not necessarily the act of going at the same speed. That is the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: That is not a good example, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a good example, I say to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. There are a lot of examples I am going to relate here, a lot of examples over the course of the night and however long it takes to bring government to its senses, that they cannot be getting away with this and we are not going to let them get away with this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If every one of us have to stand up here and let you know what you have done wrong, we are going to highlight it to ensure that you do not do it again. That is the role of an Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Auditor General said - and we played games with figures. Here is what he said just a couple of weeks ago. He said: To put the matter in perspective, the budget of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the year ending 31 March 2002, as approved by this House, projected a deficit of $30.5 million while the actual deficit, as reported in the Consolidated Summary of Financial Statements, was $473.1 million.

Can you imagine? How do we get almost $500 million in debt in one year when we are telling the people out there, balanced budgets. We have not balanced a budget. Since the Consolidated Summary of Financial Statements have been issued, there has not been a balanced budget in this Province, because that gives the true picture of the state of our Province's finances. People who follow accounting procedures know it, we know it here in Opposition, the Auditor General knows it, and I really believe government knows it, but they are not willing to tell the people the truth about it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave?

Well, I will have an opportunity to get back again. They do not want to hear the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman it is a pleasure to follow my colleague from Ferryland, because -

MR. MATTHEWS: I can't say it is a pleasure for us.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, it might not be a pleasure for you but you are going to be submitted to some truth and honesty in the Legislature tonight dealing with Bill 8, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is that the Member for Ferryland has explained in detail, and he will take some more time because he has a lot more examples, I know he does, of what this bill is about.

Bill 8 essentially is asking this Legislature to approve the sum of approximately $51 million, which is money they have already spent. So, for anybody who wants to understand the legislative process, this money was spent through the use of special warrants.

Special warrants are to be used at a time when the House is not open. There is a pressing need to ensure the Cabinet takes a decision of a special warrant to ensure that the services that government offer to the public are not in jeopardy. That if a situation arises that the Cabinet can, through the issuance of a special warrant ensure that services are not interrupted, whether it be an emergency, that has happened from time to time. I know in the district of my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, after a storm one time down there a couple of years ago down in La Scie, for example, that would have been an emergency.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Ferryland is dead on. He is correct in what he has indicated here. What happened with a number of these special warrants was that Cabinet passed these warrants while this very House was in session, while every member in this House was sitting in their place doing the job that they were elected to do, and essentially in doing that, in Cabinet taking that action, have held each and every member in this House at that time in contempt. It is the only way to describe it.

What would have been the reason, Mr. Chairman, for example, that the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board who is responsible for upholding the laws of the Province with respect to the governance of our finances, namely the Financial Administration Act, what would have been of such a pressing need for the minister and her Cabinet colleagues to issue this money while the Legislature was in session without coming here first?

If it was that pressing, and if the need was that great, do you think, or does anybody think, for one moment that any member in the Legislature would have stayed or stopped it or gotten in the way of it? No, we would not have, because nobody - nobody! - in this Legislature, in my view, certainly on this side who I can speak for, is in the business of trying to interrupt public services. The only reason and the only conclusion that one can draw from the special warrants and what we are being asked to pass here today, is that this government attempted to hide and manipulate the budget figures of the Province. That is all that went on. That is all that went on, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, at the same time, remember, this is a government under the stewardship of the current Premier, that said they would be the most open, accountable and transparent government in Newfoundland's political history, certainly since Confederation.

Now, let me ask you this question: How open and how accountable is this government when it spends $51 million of the public money, over 95 per cent of it issued when this House was in session, when members were in their seats, through a requirement that this government and any government has for the issuance of special warrants. It is abuse, Mr. Chairman, abuse of what the special warrant provision is to be used for. There is no one who can defend what has occurred here.

Now, my colleague has also talked about how the minister will say, and has said from time to time in the past, that: What are you trying to say, that we shouldn't have put money into health care, that we shouldn't have put $2.5 million into works, services and transportation, that we shouldn't have put $10,429,000 into education, that we shouldn't have spent $34,753,100 on health and community services, or that we shouldn't have spent $3,343,700 in justice? That is the tact and the spin. Absolutely not! Nobody is saying that shouldn't have happened.

What we are saying is that you had an obligation under the law - this is not an opinion - to table it right here in this House before you spent the people's money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what the Auditor General referred to in terms of breach of the Financial Administration Act. That is what the Auditor General referred to in terms of circumventing this Legislature.

MR. REID: You are going to get a headache, Ed. Your blood pressure is going up.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries is singing out, for my colleagues who haven't heard him, that: Ed, you are going to get a headache. Your blood pressure is going up. When I see the type of mismanagement and attempts to hide what you have done, it would give anybody a headache, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. It would make anybody's blood pressure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In the last three to four years, over $1 billion has been added to the debt of this Province. It is no wonder people's blood pressures are up, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Unbelievable!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and, as a matter of fact, my colleague has just said to me, and he is correct, that not only -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) at least $1 billion in extra funding in the last few years.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Fisheries would like to get up after I am finished and tell the people of the Province why they circumvented the laws of the Province, then I will gladly sit down and listen to him try to explain it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is that the management of the Province, as my colleague has just said, is not only going to give people in the Province, today, a headache, but it is going to give our grandchildren a headache because it is something they have to deal with as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Fisheries would like to stand and defend - because he was there. He was part of the Cabinet at the time that circumvented the Financial Administration Act of the Province. He was part of the Cabinet that issued these special warrants and has the face and the audacity, a year later, to come to this Legislature and request our approval for $51 million that they hid and they have already spent, because that is exactly what this piece of legislation is about. If he wants to stand, he has a right to like every other member, but I would be interested in hearing what members of Cabinet have to say about how they can defend, outright publicly, why they broke the law, circumvented the Financial Administration Act, while this very Chamber was in session. There is no defence, Mr. Chairman. There is no defence for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The type of management that we are talking about here goes to the very heart of what it means to be accountable, goes to the very heart of what it means to be an open type of government. It is transparent, there is no question about that, because people can see tonight, and people in this House understand and see tonight, what kind of transparency is associated with Bill 8. The bill (inaudible) is an act - it is in the title, Mr. Chairman: 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, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Now, any layperson who had very little knowledge of how this Legislature and how the bills work, if they were to come in and read this, their first impression would be: Well, this bill is contained now - let me have a look. According to the title we are being asked to approve this amount of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes we are, but it certainly does not say in the bill that you have already spent it. It does not come with an attachment saying that the Financial Administration Act of the Province, the laws that govern how we arrange our finances, were broken or circumvented. It does not contain the Auditor General's comments as highlighted by the Member for Ferryland, and I know that he has more to say on this matter in a few moments. But, the fact of the matter is, that in the opening comments by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, nowhere did I hear, nowhere did I see, an explanation that could fly or be plausible in any way, shape, or form of why government issued these special warrants when this Chamber was opened, when the House of Assembly was in session, that on the very days that we were debating issues leading up to the budget process of the Province, last year in the Cabinet room on the tenth floor of this building, passed $51 million and made a conscious decision not to bring it before the members of this House while we were sitting here. That is exactly what happened, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: As my colleague has just said to me, that a conscious decision, $48.5 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What would I have done? I would have brought it to the floor of the Legislature and let us debate it. That is what I would have done. That is what we would have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Fisheries has interjected and asked -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) the money.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, he has asked again: What would we have done? In terms of being transparent and open, we would have brought it here and let the members of this House do their duties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We would have given the members of this House the opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: All you are doing is misleading people (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will be back.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I feel constrained to speak at this point in the debate on special warrants because so far we have heard from two speakers on the other side of the House. We have given the latitude for them to put up speakers and we would not interject necessarily between each speaker, but what is being propositioned and put forward by the members on the other side of the House -

MR. H. HODDER: Our proposition is not agree on what is being put forth.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. members and to the people of the public, what is being put forward is this notion that we, as government over here, have in some way been breaking the law of the land by virtue of using special warrants as a means of approving expenditures that were not covered in the original budget. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that special warrants are a normal and standard way of dealing with extraordinary expenditures that have not been voted in the budget, that was not approved in the budget that was put forward but they are for expenditures that during the course of the year government has deemed it wise and prudent to spend in the interest of providing public services to the people of the Province. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the allegations of lawlessness, the allegations of breaking the law, the allegations of going around and circumventing the law has been -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) twice the man before you started babysitting him.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: The allegations that are being put forward by the members on the other side that we have broken the law is a gross infactualization in terms of what is actually happening with respect to this particular issue. We are not breaking the law. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, that we are in fact, tonight, bringing before this House, while the House is sitting, the expenditures for reporting and for approval, as is required by the laws of the land. If the hon. members want to know what the difference is between this circumstance and one other example that we could give which it clearly breaking the laws of the land, what we have done here is approved expenditures by way of special warrant that will subsequently - and tonight is the subsequent date - be reported to the House of Assembly. They are expenditures that are a continuation of line item votes in the Budget that was put forward in the previous year.

What would be breaking the law, Mr. Chair, is if we were asking for approval of special warrants for expenditures for which there was no line item budget voted in the previous year's Budget. Mr. Chair, that means that if there was a vote in the previous Budget, extraordinary expenditure under that vote by special warrant is completely and absolutely in keeping with the law of the land and completely in keeping with the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Chair, what I would put forward as having been a violation of the law of the land, the Financial Administration Act, is what happened in this Legislature in 1988 and 1989. What happened in that period of time, Mr. Chair, is this: that there was no line item vote in the previous year's budget for expenditures for a specific project, but during the year the government of the day saw fit to break the law by spending $104 million on a Sprung Greenhouse project without any line item in a pervious year's budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: That, Mr. Chair, was a violation of the Financial Administration Act and was, in fact, the breaking of the laws of the land.

What these special warrants represent, Mr. Chair, is no more breaking the law than - it is just not a law breaking thing. It is a reporting to the House of expenditures under line items that had votes attached to them in the previous year's budget.

Because it is the responsibility of government to make decisions as we govern on a day-to-day basis, we chose throughout the year to make additional expenditures for things such as health care, for things such as education, for things that were the provision of services to the public of this Province, we chose to make these expenditures in the context of making decisions that we believe were important for the people of the Province and we did it by way of the normal procedure, which was special warrants, and tonight we present the information to the House for approval.

There is nothing new about this. There is nothing different than has happened year over year over year over year over year. It happens every year, and whether it is this government or any other government, if it is done right it is not breaking the law; but, if it is done wrong, as was done in 1988-1989 when expenditures were made for items that had no line item in the budget the previous year, that is, in fact, breaking the law.

Mr. Chair, I would not want the people of the Province to misunderstand the real circumstances and it is a very, very, serious issue in my judgement, Mr. Chair, when the Opposition rises in the House to debate this, as is their right and responsibility, to characterize what is happening as law breaking activities. It is not the truth. It is not the fact. It is not the proper thing to be putting forward, to mislead the people of the Province on that basis and I would suggest, I would ask the hon. members on the other side of the House if they would be good enough to stick to debating what it is in terms of the merits of the expenditure, not the process that was used. The process is fine, the expenditures were right and valid, and they were for a good purpose. We defend, we stand by and we support what we have done, and if circumstances were similar in a future time, we would do the same thing again if it was for the best interests of the people of the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to repeat, to make sure I heard what the minister said correctly. The minister said that, if we are looking for money under special warrant for a new service - he said, this is not a new service, this is an over-expenditure on a current service. Then, we are not breaking the law. I ask the minister: Is that what you said?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it was. There you go. That is what he said.

In fact, I would like to indicate section 28(3) of the Financial Administration Act, which makes provision for an new service that is not there, and he said: We are breaking the law if we do that.

Listen to section 28(2) of that, Minister. It says, "Where the sum appropriated by the Legislature for a continuing service is insufficient to meet the requirements of that service during the year for which the appropriation has been made, then, upon the report of the minister that there is insufficient legislative provision and no countervailing savings are available from other subheads of the Head of Expenditure concerned and upon report of the minister having charge of that service in question that the necessity is urgent, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on the recommendation in writing of the board, order that a special warrant be prepared for signature by the Lieutenant-Governor..."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask you to read Hansard, to play the tape. That minister admitted here that they broke the law because he said: We approved expenditure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He said: We approved it for an over-expenditure which is not in contravention of the act, and 28(2) of the act clearly states it is contravention. He said: If we did that, we broke the law. You did that, Minister, and you broke the law in contravention of the act. Either government does not know the act or they are pretending they don't know the act. It has to be one of the two. You either know or you don't know. If you don't know, there is no excuse. If you are pretending you don't know, that is even worse again. That is being deceitful -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - if that is the case. To be honest with you, I will take the minister at his word, because by the way he spoke he didn't know. By the way you spoke, you didn't know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said: If it is a new service, we didn't break the law. If it is an expense on a current service, we did break the law. That is what the minister did, and I believe you didn't know. I don't believe you tried to deceive this House.

MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Minister of Mines and Energy, to a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe I am hearing the hon. member opposite right, and if I am, unless I have it wrong, he has reversed what I put forward in my speech. He has reversed what I put forward in my speech.

Now, I am prepared to check Hansard in the morning too, to see if I got it right or wrong. As far as I am concerned, I got it right. You know the difference and you are still trying to purport something that, in fact, is not the case.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it is an excellent ruling because he was only trying to be an obstructionist on my time. I will stand by his record in Hansard, what he said, and everybody heard it in this House. He knows fully well, and he can play it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We can go back and read it and we will find out what the minister said. He admitted, basically, in line with section 28.(2), that they broke the law of this Province. The minister said, and everybody heard, that only if it is a new service does it not break the law. If it is a current service, over-expenditure, it would break the law. Go back and read Hansard. I am going to move on. I will leave that point alone, Mr. Chairman, because the records speak for themselves, and as he was waiting in there I can see.

I would like to make reference to something else about the Auditor General. I take the Auditor General's report very seriously. I think it is, and the Minister of Finance said in this House, a clean audited report, basically, in this House in the public accounts. The Auditor General said that there were six special warrants totalling $61.5 million issued in the previous fiscal year, the fiscal year ending 2001. I made reference to the ones ending this past year. The Auditor General's Office said: Our review of the four special warrants that were issued on March 20 and March 30, 2001, indicated that they were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act because they were not urgently required.

I would like to mention the ones that are in this bill here today. This House sat last March, on March 19, 20, 21, 25, 26 and 27, and on March 27 of last year they were signing special warrants to the tune of $10.4 million for education and another for $23.8 million in health, for $34.22 million signed on March 27 of last year when we were down here in this House of Assembly dealing with the business of this Province, and we did not even know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ask a question in the House?

MR. SULLIVAN: I did. I asked a question in the House on that particular - I asked the minister last year, and Hansard will show: Minister, are there any special warrants being issued now before year end that we are not aware of? Go back to Hansard and see. Are there any special warrants?

I cannot say exactly what the minister answered but anybody can click into Hansard on the Net and find it quickly. You can read Hansard and find out. I asked that question because I feared what they were doing for the last number of years, they were doing again. They are ramming through a pile of special warrants before the end of the fiscal year so they can manipulate the finances of the Province to give the public a different impression than actually exists here in this Province. That is what they did and that, to me, is a very deceitful act. That shows up in the final analysis in the Auditor General's report. This is a report by the Auditor General -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot take it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the member for Clarenville that this member, this minister, and other colleagues here do not appreciate being called deceitful, when the member opposite knows full well what is contained in the Financial Administration Act. I ask the Member for Ferryland not to stoop so low and stick to the issues.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who said that?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You said that, the Member for Ferryland, that we were being deceitful. Let's check Hansard, Mr. Chairman, because I don't think anyone needs to stoop that low to make a point, and people listening can see the difference without shouting and screaming about deceitful acts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair will review Hansard and make a ruling at a later date.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did indicate, that is a deceitful act. That is what I said, and I choose my words. I didn't say the minister is being deceitful, and Hansard will show I said: It is a deceitful act. That is what I said, and it is a deceitful act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a deceitful act, to give the public the impression one thing is happening when something completely different is happening. Whoever is responsible for that over there needs to stand up and be accountable to the public on that particular issue.

Now, the Auditor General had a lot of things to say, and I want to relate some of them in the limited time that I have here. For example, the Auditor General's comments here, I might add, are on what this minister stood in the House and said: I am tabling the public accounts of the Province, my own department's accounts of the finances of our Province. That is what she said. We get that statement in this House once a year. Once a year we get the public accounts. Then they have to give the real picture, because it is scrutinized and reported on by the Auditor General. The other 364 days of the year we get a shell game in the public, giving the impression it is hunky dory. It is disaster when it comes to negotiation time, we are the worst off, and when it comes to Budget time, a fantastic economy, we are leading the country, we are the best economy in the country. If we are, tell me: If Gross Domestic Product has been going up steadily - we have led the country for the past three years in GDP. If the gross domestic Product goes up, the amount of debt we have, as a percentage of GDP, should go down, because if the debt stays here and the GDP keeps going up, it should become less significant.

What has happened? Our debt has gone from 57 per cent of GDP up to 63 per cent. So, the Gross Domestic Product has gone wild within the country and the debt has passed it by. He has to look in his rear-view mirror to see it. That is how fast we are going head over heels in debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: There is something fundamentally wrong with the operation of a Province when we are leading the country in Gross Domestic Product -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we find that the debt that surpassed us. That is a major, major problem on that end.

By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave. The truth hurts, Mr. Chairman, and I will get back at it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure, Mr. Chair, whether I should rise on a point of personal privilege or a point of order, but I do make reference, under whatever category it falls, to the comments that the hon. the Finance critic uses when he alleges that government has committed a deceitful act.

Government is an entity as an organization, but in order for deceitful acts to be commissioned and executed by government it means that some person in government, some member of government, must have been a part of commissioning that offense. I understand the word deceitful to mean, Mr. Chair - to me, it means lying. To me, it means acting falsely. To me, it means you have done something that is wrong and that you allege that the wrong you have done is, in fact, a right.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to seriously rule, if necessary, even this evening if you can, on whether or not the term "deceitful act" is parliamentary or non-parliamentary. This issue of it being parliamentary or non-parliamentary, I would submit to you, is one issue, but the more serious issue is the allegation that an hon. member has, in effect, done something that translates into lying to this House and, by extension, lying to the people of the Province.

We accept each other as hon. members in this House, and we accept each other's word in this House, and the allegation as put forward by the Member for Ferryland that we have been deceitful is identical, in my judgement, to saying that on this side fo the House some minister, some member, has lied on behalf of government. I would submit to you that it is unparliamentary and I would ask you to ask the hon. member to withdraw that assertion because it does nothing to establish a higher level of respect for any of us on any side of the House. The least I submit we can do is show respect for each other and to accept the word of each other because, in fact, if we go below that standard of operation we are bringing ourselves into an area of new low and disrespect for the rules of the House traditionally and as asserted in the rules that he has read.

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines and Energy rose on a point of privilege or a point of order. He did not know what point he was trying to make. The fact of the matter simply is this: that what he has said that the Member of Ferryland said, he did not say.

Let me inform him, for his own future references, what is parliamentary in terms of language. Now he can pick whatever he wants, contravention of an act, deceitful act, but let me inform him what has been ruled in the past to be parliamentary: deceive, dishonest, mislead, misinforming, misleading, misrepresentations - all parliamentary - so you can pick the choice. Whatever category you fit, I suggest you wear it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to the topic.

CHAIR: The Chair will take the matter under advisement and report back in due course.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I take the opportunity again to provide clarification in a tone that I hope will require less volume for anyone listening, because I think the volume really is irrelevant to the point. The point I want to make is that members opposite, including the critic, know full well - and I know that he knows but somehow he is trying to give the impression that what is happening here is not accurate. I will not use the word that he used, because I think it imputes a motive. I prefer not to go to that depth, but I will stick to the point at hand. The point is, Mr. Chair, by tabling special warrants in the House we have not, under any circumstance whatsoever, done anything wrong, anything that does not follow, to the letter of the law, the Financial Administration Act. Members opposite know that in this House of Assembly as long as you are providing more funds for an existing service you are totally, clearly within the realm of the Financial Administration Act 28(2). I say that is accurate to the letter of the law, Mr. Chair, and I am taking the opportunity to make my point. Members opposite know the difference. If this was a new item that was never - I ask the members listening: Is giving money to the drug program for seniors new money? No. Is giving extra money for the social assistance recipients new money? No. Is giving money to the hospitals and health care facilities for emergency repairs new money? I say, no. Is giving money to the Justice Department for providing the work new money? I say, no. Members opposite know the difference.

Now, if you want to talk about the number of special warrants - and members opposite talked about that previously: Oh, we are only down to nine. Yes, we are down to nine and we are quite proud of being down to nine, instead of forty or fifty. We are down to nine at $51 million to continue the services that we have provided through health, education, justice and works, services and transportation.

Now, if they want to talk about history again, which they don't, I can give good examples, if you want to talk about misuse of special warrants.

MR. SULLIVAN: Talk about the future. That is what (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Member for Ferryland doesn't want to hear about the past. He doesn't want to hear it, but he knows the difference.

I can say that in 1988-1989, when there were twenty-five or thirty special warrants given to the tune of $104 million to clean up the Sprung fiasco, they don't want to hear about that. They don't want to hear about any of that, and that is fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can live with that, but that is also a part of the truth, it is part of the history, it is part of the fact.

Mr. Chair, I would say I am putting forward information, factual information, and I think it is important to put it into perspective. Members opposite would like to leave the impression that somehow this government, these members, have done something wrong. If what we have done, by putting more money into health care, education and justice, is wrong, let the people of the Province tell us. Frankly, Mr. Chair, when we get calls from members about drug programs, about their hospitals, about new equipment, we try our best to respond. These are existing budget allocations, they are not new allocations. There has been no breach of the Financial Administration Act, there has been no breach of the law, and members opposite know it.

In fact, the Member for St. John's North, the Minister of Mines and Energy, rose as well and spoke on the same issue and clearly identified - now, they don't want to hear it, but it is important for the people of the Province to know the difference, that what we have done here in this House of Assembly this year, as in previous years, is that we have provided extra money to provide services that we deem important.

Then they say, oh, we are using health, because we are supposed to get to the people's hearts. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think health is very much of the people's heart in this Province and I think they see it as very important. I do not think that anybody would criticize spending extra money in health care. Further, I would say, that many of the issues, many of these points, without a doubt, are of an urgent nature -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not the issue here. You are missing the point.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say it is very much the point to the people listening because there is certainly an attempt here to make people believe that what we have done is wrong, that what we have done has not met the needs of the people and what we have done has broken the Financial Administration Act. Let me say again, Mr. Chair, that this is totally within the letter of the law. We have followed the Financial Administration Act and I would say to other members who have spoken, or will speak, that they can feel confident we have not breached the law. We have upheld our duty and we have done what was required of us in making the types of decisions that we make on a day-to-day basis about how we spend urgent money.

Now, members opposite say the House was open and you should have come here for approval. What I can say to the act, to the Financial Administration Act, is that whether the House is open or not, if you are providing an extension of existing programs and services it is clearly, totally, legally, acceptable under the Financial Administration Act to do that. However, you must table them in the House of Assembly. Today these are tabled in the House of Assembly as they were in the spring of this year. They were tabled in the spring of the last session when these very numbers were tabled.

I say to the members opposite and to the people listening, that these members have followed the law. We have done what we believe has been for the best interests of the people about providing extra money for health care, for education, for our schools, for our hospitals, for our drug programs, for our seniors and for those most in need, people on social assistance. I would say let the people judge if that is a breach of the Financial Administration Act because they know the difference. They know the difference because they know that when you provide new money for programs that were never there before you must come to this House of Assembly and request that.

They also know the difference, and the reverse is true, that if you are extending an existing line item that it is absolutely within the letter of the law to do it as we have done it here, as we did it last year, as they did under Peckford's government, as they did under Moores' government. Did we like it at the time? Probably not, because anybody coming in with $104 million to clean up a mess - no, you would not expect anyone to like it. But, in this case, I will say that in providing extra money for health care, for justice, for education, these are existing line items. There is no breach of the Financial Administration Act. No matter who you want to try to half quote or quote, under the definition of the Financial Administration Act, if they cared to read it, as it is stated, when there is an extension of an existing line item it is totally acceptable, whether the House is in session or not, to approve the special warrant as long as the special warrant is tabled in the House of Assembly, tabled in the spring, it is tabled again now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will say to the member shouting across the House, because I think it is important to say, I will say again to the members here on this side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Necessity is urgent, section 2 (inaudible) read it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say to all members here: Would you consider extra drugs for our social assistance recipients urgent? Do you think we should say no? What about our seniors, should we say no to that? What about our schools?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say to the people listening, everything that we have done is tabled. Members like to use the word hide. I think they are hiding because they know the truth. This minister has not done anything other than what is written in the law; has not breached any financial administration act. It is there for the people to see.

Further, with the public accounts, that too was tabled for the people to see. I would say again, most sincerely, that people know the difference. People know that when you provide information, when you provide the details and table them in the House of Assembly - what are you hiding? You are following the law. I say that these very special warrants were tabled in the spring. Members saw these in the spring. They know exactly what was tabled in the spring; trying to leave the impression that this was not brought before the House in the spring session. It certainly was, and members know the difference.

Further, I would say to the members listening and to all people listening, that this is an extension of existing programs and services which is totally, totally within the acceptability of the Financial Administration Act. No breach has been done. There has been no law broken. I would further say that in every case - and I can clearly read them again -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight, that no law has been broken.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know I have colleagues waiting to speak. I am going to make this brief. Section 28.(2) of the Financial Administration Act indicates that it is necessary to get a warrant where it is urgently needed for an over expenditure on a current area that is budgeted for, and you over expend, it must be urgently needed to issue a special warrant. That is spelled out in section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act.

Section 28.(3) addresses a new service. In a new service, it says, not only is it urgently required but the House must have closed for more than thirty days, basically, under a new service. But, under the current over expenditure it must be urgently required. You cannot issue a warrant if it is not urgently required. The minister is trying to confuse the both of them.

The former Minister of Finance said here in this House, and Hansard will show, he said: We can go ahead and expend in a current area without breaching that requirement, and they are wrong on that, you cannot do it. You can only do it where there is a urgent need. Special warrants are not being issued under any circumstance unless it is urgently required. That is not what the minister said earlier, and now she is trying to hide it off with something else, basically.

I am going to give my colleague an opportunity - and I want to clarify that point. Maybe he didn't read that, but I will advise the minister and the former Minister of Finance to read the Financial Administration Act, 28(2) and 28(3).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There can be no greater responsibility on a government than to uphold the laws of the Province. There can be no greater responsibility. In fact, the mandate of the government is to bring in legislation, the mandate of the government is to govern, and to live within the governance that is made by this Legislature for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what you are supposed to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: My colleague, the Member for Ferryland, has clearly said that section 28 of the Financial Administration Act has not been obeyed, the governance that has led this government here to take action. So, consequently, what he said, very clearly, is that the Financial Administration Act has not been followed to the letter by this government.

Now, it is not just my colleague, the Member for Ferryland. Let's read what the Auditor General says in the report for the year ending 31 March 2002. Let's go to page 29. I will read the entire paragraph.

It says, "Special warrants are used to make payments not approved in the original budget, thereby increasing Government expenditures and either increasing its deficit or decreasing its surplus. Since 1997 my Office has expressed concern that many special warrants issued each year did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act as, in our opinion, they were not urgently required. The use of special warrants provides Government with the flexibility to "adjust" its cash surplus or deficit and produce a result that it - meaning the government - desires. As shown in Figure 7, special warrants issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act since 1997 were as follows:"

Now, let's note this. Since 1997, the following special warrants have been issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. These are not my words, these are not the minister's words, these are not the government's words, not the Member for Ferryland's words, not the Leader fo the Opposition's words, these are the words of the man who was mandated to look after the financial affairs of our Province, the man who has, in this case, the trust of all of us.

He said the following, "Special Warrants in Contravention of the Financial Administration Act." In 1997, $36.9 million worth of special warrants were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. In 1998, $30.9 million were issued by the Liberal government in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. Listen to this one, in 1999, $95.0 million were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. In the year 2000, $70.8 million were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. In 2001, $33 million was issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. In the year 2002, the number is $33.1 million. Now, Mr. Chair, I say to the hon. House, these are not the words of the Member for Waterford Valley; not the words of the Member for Ferryland; not the words of the Finance Minister. In fact, these are the words of the Auditor General in his reflection on how this government has lived within the confines and restrictions and the law as contained in the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Ferryland has outlined the urgency. We are not saying here that it is not right and proper if there is a need for additional funds to support the Province's drug program. We are not saying that should not happen. What we are saying is that two things have happened. One is that the government, obviously, has not budgeted sufficient funds or else we would not run into these problems in essential services like, for example, the minister just mentioned. She said we used it to pay for health expenditures. We used it to pay for seniors drug programs; used it to pay for assistance for those people who are in need. We are not saying, on this side of the House, that is not a mandate of the government. What we are saying is that you had a budget, and the House was open when these particular special warrants were issued. If you needed extra money all you had to do was come to the House and say: We need extra funds. There is a parliamentary way to do that.

Let me quote to you what the Auditor General said in the year 2000; for the year ending March 31, 2000. Again, on page 47 of the Auditor General's report for the year ending 2000. The Auditor General said, let me quote - and it is reflecting again on the special warrants. I am quoting from, in this case, page 50. I will quote the entire sentence. It says, "In my opinion, these special warrants were not issued in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Administration Act which requires that there must be an urgent requirement for the funding." Now, Mr. Chair, it cannot be any plainer. This government has an absolute history of ignoring the constraints and the act as contained in the Financial Administration Act of the Province. The Auditor General says so. It is not Harvey Hodder, the Member for Waterford Valley. It is not the Minister of Finance. It is the Auditor General who is issuing an indictment on this government and its spending practices.

Mr. Chair, let's go to the next year. I just quoted for the year ending March 31, 2000. Let me quote you from the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 2001. I am referring here to pages 71 onward. Let me quote - talking special warrants - it says, "The common parliamentary means of providing spending authority to government is through the annual passing of supply acts." Then it says, "The Financial Administration Act outlines the circumstances which must exist in order for a special warrant to be approved and additional funding provided to Government." Then she mentions the number of special warrants issued since 1993.

Let's note, when the minister started her comments this evening she talked about the number issued in the 1980s. I thought she was going to go back to the 1920s and come all the way up through and show us the complete history. We could have gone back, if she had wanted us to do that, but we will not do that. We will just go back to since the Liberal government came in.

In 1993 there were seven special warrants totaling $42.4 million; $2.5 million of that was issued in the month of March. That is of special significance because again, the warrants were issued in order to adjust the books for the year. In 1994 there were two special warrants totaling $36.5 million. In 1995 there were thirteen special warrants. I am glad they are going down this year. Thirteen special warrants, $57.9 million. In 1996 there were ten. In 1997, $75.7 million. In 1998, thirteen at $88.6 million. In 1999, fourteen special warrants for a total of $136 million. There were seven special warrants in 2000 at $70.8 million, and six special warrants in 2001 at $61.5 million. That is a total, in those years from 1993 to 2001, of $601.9 million; $500 million issued in special warrants in those years. Of that amount, $374.9 million was issued in March.

As the Auditor General has said in his commentary, it is a significance in that most of them get issued in March. It says, and I will quote again from the Auditor General, "The use of special warrants provides Government with the flexibility to "adjust" its cash surplus or deficit and produce a result it desires." In other words, special warrants are used to show the budgetary statements of the government to be in a way which the government feels will be put in the best light possible.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: And that, to me, is against the spirit and the intent of the Financial Administration Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On March 25 of last year in this House, I stood in my place in Question Period and asked the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board if - in March, 2001, the previous year, during the last few days of the fiscal year when this House was in session the minister allowed special warrants totaling $33 million to be issued; the very day that the House sat. I said according to the Auditor General this was contrary to the Financial Administration Act in that they were not urgently required. Mr. Chair, the question I asked: Was the minister trying to hide the special warrants from the House the very day when the House sat? I said it is contempt for the House and it breaks the law of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I said to the minister: Have any special warrants - this was in March - been issued so far this month that we are not aware of, and is it government's intent to issue any before the end of the month? When I asked that question on March 25 this government had already issued, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, special warrants that this minister did not answer and tell me they did so. I have the minister's response. The minister said: I am not sure if I got the whole question because the volume dropped a little bit. It is kind of difficult to think that happened, Mr. Chairman. But, she said: I think I have it all.

Here is what she said. The question was answered by the member opposite when he asked a question about the definition of urgent: Mr. Speaker, we saw the need for issuing special warrants to meet the urgent needs. There is nothing hidden here. The members opposite would love to think we have a clandestine operation going on over here. It was read in the Budget Speech, so everybody heard it on Thursday. I asked: Would she tell me, were there any warrants issued this month? This was on March 25. They issued them, actually, on March 15, March 22, numerous warrants. Are there anymore going to be issued before the end of the month? She would not tell me. All she would say is: there is nothing hidden. She said what we are planning to do - it is there for all to read. There is nothing hidden. We believe the allocation of money for health care is urgent.

I got up again and asked: Will she comply with the laws of the Province? Would she bring expenditures to a supply bill so the House could debate it or include it in next year's budget to get approved? The minister said, there is nothing hidden, but she would not ask. Three days earlier and ten days earlier there were warrants issued by this government, and the minister was asked in Question Period on March 25 but would not stand and say they were. She would not tell us. They were issued two days after I asked those questions. There were millions and millions of dollars. In total in that period, from March 15 to March 27, $48.5 million was issued in special warrants. I stood, as an elected member of this House representing the people in my district, and asked that fair question: Can you tell us? Because if you have them now, why don't you put them in the Supplementary Supply Bill? Why don't we debate that now, rather than come back here several months later, and trying to keep it hidden for several months in the Province? It was not a fair answer. The Minister of Finance had to know. If she didn't know that we were expending tens of millions of dollars out of the public purse, she should admit it. I had grave concerns, because they had to be okayed by Cabinet. So, Cabinet had to know, but it wasn't forthright to tell us here.

Mr. Chairman, that is very unfair, that is not being forthright and that is not carrying out the responsibilities in an open and transparent manner. I take great offence, as a member of this House of Assembly, in not getting the real truth from the minister. It happened the previous year and the year before. The Auditor General raised it. So, I wanted to know was it going to happen again this year in defiance of the laws of the Province according to the Auditor General, and that minister avoided giving an answer when it had already been done to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. That is very, very unfair, and it is not addressing, it is hiding, Mr. Chairman, the true picture of finances over and above the budgeted amount, from us and from the people of this Province. That is not what a minister or a government should do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I take this opportunity to once again set the record straight on comments made by the critic, in terms of the comments I made with respect to questions that were asked. I will say to members opposite, and to those listening, that under the Financial Administration Act, any new expenditures would have to be brought to the House, if they were not considered two things: First of all, if they weren't considered urgent; and second, if they were new expenditures not previously identified as an item in the budget. The member opposite knows this and still he tries to leave the impression that there is this clandestine operation happening over here.

I can say very clearly to the people of the Province, that this supplementary supply bill we have before us today, with these special warrants, are identified as an extension of existing line items - I will say it again for the people here - for Health, for Education, for Works, Services and Transportation and for Justice. Is it a breach of the Financial Administration Act? No. Were they considered urgent by members and ministers as they were put forward? Yes. They have to do that in order to be considered a special warrant that is brought forward to the House. Only new items that were created and were not part of the budget are consistently identified as something that needs to be tabled when the House is open.

I say to people listening, I say to members of this House, there was no breach; that, in the answers to the questions, I said there is nothing hidden. There was nothing hidden then, there is nothing hidden now. The information is tabled, it is being discussed. If you want, if people want, I can read them all out again what we spent the money on, all the repairs, all the roof repairs, all the schools, all the changes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: They do not like to hear that, but we know they are important, essential extensions of existing money that we deem to be important and urgent, and that is why they were made forward as special warrants.

I say to the member opposite, when he talked about the public accounts and how they were tabled, it was just the other day in this House of Assembly that he stood up on behalf of Archean Resources asking that we cut taxes.

Now, on this side of the House we would love to cut taxes, and even though they, through a discovery of our non-renewable resource, will achieve millions and millions of dollars, and we are happy for them, we are delighted for them, we believe that it is important for us, on behalf of the people of the Province, to get our fair share of non-renewable resources.

What can we do with it? We will put it in health care, we will put it in education, and we will put it in social services. Every time, that is where we put the money.

Now, we are here acting on the best interests of the people of the Province. We have not violated any Financial Administration Act. We have followed the letter of the law. We have hidden nothing, I say, Mr. Chair, and I will further say, again, that every single time with these special warrants they are following the Financial Administration Act. They are an extension of existing programs and services that can be tabled when the House is open; however, they do not have to come to the House of Assembly to get permission beforehand because they are an extension of existing programs and services. Is that my law, Mr. Chair? No. It is the law that has been in place for any number of years. It is the same law that Premier Peckford used with his special warrants, and Premier Moores -

AN HON. MEMBER: He broke the law.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, I am not making any comment on who broke the law back then, but what I will say is that they followed the same Financial Administration Act, albeit bringing in $104 million at the end of it. I will say that the $51 million that we have spent in health care, for paying for the occupational reviews of LPNs, social workers, nurses, and all of the other health care providers, plus all the repairs in our estimation were considered important and urgent, they meet the letter of the law. They are not a breach of the Financial Administration Act, and we stand by that decision.

Has there been something hidden? No. It is information tabled for all to see. I would say to members opposite, and to the critic who tries to leave this clandestine operation type approach over here, that there is nothing hidden. What you see here is the result of the special warrants, that we have made a conscious decision based on an urgent need that these are important for the delivery of the programs and services we currently have in place.

If what I am hearing is that we should not have done this, we should have waited and called it a new item, and said, no, we cannot pay for the drugs and we cannot pay for the repairs but we will wait until the House opens in the fall and see if that is okay, we do not run government like that, and we do not think that is the way it should happen. Further, I will say that members opposite, while they will not admit it, know the difference. They know that a special warrant is totally acceptable if it is an extension of an existing line item that is deemed to be urgent. That is how members on this side, through the ministers, brought forward the requests to do these kinds of initiatives, and we stand by it. There has not been any breach. There has not been anything hidden. It has been tabled. It is there for people to see. We believe, and we stand by it, that these are good decisions and that, again, we will continue to fight for what we believe is right when it comes to proper taxation reductions, proper allocation of taxes, as we have with the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act which we hope to debate here in this House fairly soon, again speaking on behalf of the people of the Province, giving the people of the Province a fair share of our non-renewable resources that belong to all of us, that we believe is an important tax to put back into our programs and services because we own the resource. All too often we have been told we do not get enough for our non-renewable resources.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In fact, Mr. Chairman, what we have done is provide - I say to the Member for Kilbride, he had his turn. He can have another turn, I am sure. I am just finishing up my comments now.

I will say again, on the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, what we have done is struck a balance between finding an allocation of taxes to put back to the people of the Province and allowing the economics of this project to happen, allowing the mine to be developed. If the mine was not developed, Archean Resources would not get the money they are getting. It is about a balance. It is about returning resources and revenues to the people of the Province because they own it. It is about us maintaining a commitment to maintain the laws through the Financial Administration Act and, again, in keeping with the Financial Administration Act, tabling the warrants, following the law, and providing the money for those programs and services which we deem to be very important and urgent.

I thank you again, Madam Chair, for that opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We here in the Opposition believe the laws were broken and contravened the Financial Administration Act. The Auditor General of our Province has indicated, on numerous occasions, that there have been vagrant violations since 1997. He referenced there and I read that. The minister brought up an issue that we will debate later when the bill comes before the House and I will not take time under this bill, but I will. She is giving the impression I am saying give a break to Archean. I am saying, do not dry up exploration in this Province, the people who toil in exploration in Buchans, Baie Verte, Springdale, and all over Labrador, to find a mine. We would not have a mine to operate if we did not have incentives in exploration - the only one, I might add, that is collecting in the entire country and in the entire world, to my knowledge, but that is for another day and we will get to that in due course.

I want to ask this minister a question. The minister is conveniently not paying attention because she does not want to stand up and answer my question. I want to know, when I asked on March 25 last year, were there warrants issued this month, or about to be issued in this House, the minister would not tell me. If that is not hiding something - either she did not know, and you have to know because warrants go through Cabinet approval - if that is not hiding something, what is?

Madam Chairperson, I would like for the minister to stand and tell me, when I asked those questions on March 25, why she did not tell me. Why I find out months and months later that they issued $48.5 million within that month when I asked the very question and the minister did not answer, or skated around it. She is not going to get on her feet and answer that because it is only one of two things: she had to know, sitting around the Cabinet table, and she did not tell. If you do not tell something, the finances of our Province on what we are spending, she is trying to deflect it on the urgent need of the health care. That is not the issue. The issue here is: Did the minister know? Did she hide that deliberately from the people of this Province? I am waiting to hear an answer and I have not heard it. We would be prepared to debate it. How it was spent is another issue. That could have been done in Supplementary Supply, and the Auditor General said so.

Minister, you could stand and tell me if you knew, last March 25 when I asked those questions, that you had approved millions and millions of dollars in warrants and you refused to answer. Whether they were urgently required or not, did the minister know when I asked that question? If you did, you hid it from this House and from this Province so please stand and tell me if you knew.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

What I will say to the member, I said it in Question Period, and even though it is not Question Period - because he certainly has the opportunity to ask what he wants in Question Period - I would say to you, Madam Chair, to whom I am speaking right now, that I answered the questions that were asked. I provided the information. I have tabled the information for the House.

The member opposite knows that all of this information has to be tabled in order to follow the information provided under the Financial Administration Act. There is no need to appear injured or somehow encumbered by the answer. The answer was given in total knowingness, as my colleague would say, on the issue, and there has been - and I will say it again, there is nothing hidden. It is all tabled here. It is all tabled. The information is there for everyone to see.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I just want to ask a question; just thirty seconds. The question I asked on March 25 last year, have any special warrants been issued so far this month that we are not aware of and is it government's intent to issue any more before the end of this month, when I asked that question, Minister, did you know there were millions of dollars already issued? Will you stand here in the House and tell me if you did?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think, Madam Chair, the issue that the hon. the Member for Ferryland, the Finance critic, keeps pushing is really born out of or has a genesis in the fact that because things don't get done in this House exactly as he would like to prescribe in terms of timing and in terms of manner, because things don't get done in this House exactly as he wants them done, he gets up and alleges that somehow or in some way we are breaking the laws of the land.

Now, when he asked his question on March 25, the hon. the Minister of Finance gave her answer on March 25. Because the answer was not exactly in form and in terms of detailed content what he wanted, he alleges the law has been broken. He has been in this House, Madam Chair, long enough to understand that answers given by ministers to questions asked by people on the other side are not always going to be answered exactly as they want them answered.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Chair, this is an issue of timing. It is impossible to hide from this House anything that the hon. member is alleging. It is just as impossible for the Minister of Finance to hide from this House things that she has to report to the House as it was for me, last year, to be cutting in on, as he alleged last year - he accused me in this House, Madam Chair, of taking away from his unlimited time. Now, that is an impossibility. It cannot happen. Yet, he rose in the House and he said: The hon. member is taking away from my unlimited time. I mean, it is an oxymoron, it is a foolish concept. In terms of other propositions that he makes in this House, I would allege, Madam Chair, that they are just as silly and just a frivolous.

The hon. member, Madam Chair, I submit, knows that the Minister of Finance could not hide anything from this House that had to be reported to this House by virtue of the laws of the land. The issue, then, is one of timing. The hon. Minister of Finance reported the special warrants in her good time and in the appropriate manner and in consistency with the Financial Administration Act. It did not happen on the day that the hon. Member from Ferryland wanted it to happen or alleges that it should have happened, but that does not take away from the fact that it did happen, it was done properly, it was done by the Minister of Finance in accordance with the Financial Administration Act and the other laws of the land. The hon. member really is just continuing to prolong a debate about an issue that is an non-issue because no laws have been broken.

The special warrants have been reported. They were not reported on March 25, when he wanted them to be reported, but that is his problem, that is not ours. We do business on this side of the House in our timing according to the laws of the land, and if it does not meet his calendar, or his schedule, or his want, or his wish, that is an issue he will have to deal with, at least until such time as he has control of doing things differently. I would suggest that is a dim prospect. That, of course, only adds to the frustration that he expresses when he stands in Question Period.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I have listened with interest in terms of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board's response to my colleague, the Member for Ferryland.

A couple of important points: $48.5 million. Cabinet issued special warrants the middle of March and March of last year. On the very day or a day after, and a day before, my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, Finance and Treasury Board critic, asked the Minister of Finance a specific question. Have you issued any special warrants in this month, and are you planning to issue any more special warrants for the remainder of the month? He asked the Minister of Finance directly. There was no answer. She did not answer. She said: it is all in the Budget, nothing is hidden. One would have expected the answer that would have been provided to the minister, or to the member, specifically now with the bill before us, which tells us that on March 27, two days after he answered the question, a couple of days before he asked the question, that she indeed -

MR. SULLIVAN: Ten days before that.

MR. E. BYRNE: And ten days before he asked the question, that she indeed had issued special warrants and signed off on them, and that she knew, and that Cabinet knew.

Now the minister has gone to great lengths tonight to say: What do the members want? Drugs for seniors is not important, is not urgent. Education and salaries is not important, not urgent. Point number two is that you can spin and deflect all you want. The fact of the matter is that had one senior been in jeopardy because of a special warrant - this House was open - not one member on this side would have put one senior in jeopardy. Not one member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To suggest otherwise is a complete fallacy. To suggest that members on this side would have, because of some political motivation, jeopardized seniors and a drug program, is absolutely ludicrous.

The fact of the matter is this, those warrants were issued by that minister, by the Cabinet; did not answer the Member for Ferryland when he asked the question when this House was open. Another important point, when this House was open, when each and every member elected was in this House, it was around the Budget time, and if there were debates that needed to occur about expenditure, or we needed to put more money in, than we should have done it. We should have done it right here so that everyone could have had a look at it. No matter how much twisting, no matter how much squirming, no matter what you can say or not say, the Auditor General has judged and found you left wanting; that you have contravened the Financial Administration Act. That is a fact. You cannot escape it.

If you would like me to read it, Minister of Mines and Energy, I will read it. Our review of the four special warrants which were issued - and this is a different set - on March 30, 2001, indicated that they were issued in contravention - contravened to break the law - of the Financial Administration Act.

The Minister said just a few moments ago: What should we have done? Should we have waited until the House was opened in the fall to debate this? The fact of the matter is, the House was open and we could have debated it right then, right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To suggest otherwise, Madam Chairman, is not correct, is not right and, in fact, holds this very place and our role in it in contempt. No other judgement or conclusion can be drawn.

Let's deal with another issue she talked about, how all of these matters were urgent. They were of a dire necessity. I am reading some of it here now. Let's have a look at this. Furniture for the Supreme Court; urgent, very urgent. So urgent that we had to bypass the House of Assembly and contravene the Financial Administration Act because it was urgent and of an urgent necessity to buy new furniture for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Come on folks! What kind of world are you living in? Secondly -

MR. SULLIVAN: Seven hundred and twenty thousand wasn't it?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, $720,000. This is just under justice special warrants.

A new recording system in the special warrants; a new recording system to be instituted Province-wide. My God, I guess the people of the Province were really upset that they did not have a new recording system in every courtroom in the Province. It was so urgent that we had to breach the Financial Administration Act, bypass the House of Assembly, get it down to them right away because they did it on one day. Do you think they instituted it the next? Come on, what kind of world do you think we are living in?

The second thing, urgent, listen to this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: And they are laughing at it.

Here it is, this is what was urgent. I will read right from the warrant itself. This sum is urgently required, $1.952 million, to enable the government to provide additional funds to enable the payment of salary increases and retroactive pay to provincial court judges. I am sure they could have waited a couple of days folks. I am sure they could have waited a couple of days. The fact of the matter is: Would you really consider that urgent? Is that a drug program for seniors? Come on, the fact of the matter is that they were going to get this anyway. The fact that you issued a special warrant and tried to justify it to members in this House and to the people of the Province today, deemed urgent and necessary, of immediate attention. Listen, we are not buying it, not swallowing it, and guess what? Neither are the people of the Province. They are not going to buy it, and they are not going to swallow it, absolutely not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You can twist and squirm all you want. The issue is, why? Why would the Cabinet do this? Why would consideration be given of this? The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is the person responsible for shepherding this bill through the Legislature. She is the person responsible, on the one hand, in her capacity as the Minister of Finance, for bringing down the Budget. On the other hand, in her capacity as President of the Treasury Board, it is also her responsibility to ensure that where they said they were going to spend it, they actually spend it, and that they do not breach the Financial Administration Act.

If the Minister of Finance wants us to believe in this House that courtroom furniture, and a new system for recording, and retroactive pay, was of such an urgent and immediate need, then she can think again. Nobody, in my view, nobody in this Province, is going to believe that, and in no way, shape or form does the Financial Administration Act, in its language, say that special warrant itself would meet the litmus test of being immediate and urgent to the needs of the people of the Province. Not on this day or on any other day could it be explained in that way, and he knows it. They all know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: But the real story why this was occurring was because it occurred every year for the last several years, particularly since 1996 when former Premier Tobin sat in that chair, when on many days we heard that the Budget of the Province was in good shape, that our deficit was going to be $30 million to $40 million, and a year later when the Comptroller General drops the reports on the table, we find out it is ten to twenty times more than that. What was really going on, and it is evident for people who have been in this House for some time, was that there was an manipulation of the budget process occurring. In order for them to do it, they could not bring it to the House. They could not bring it before the people of the House because we would know then, at that time, immediately, it was being done, and the philosophy and the thinking and the strategy behind it is: Let's debate it six months later because it may be forgotten then.

Well, we are not going to forget it, let me say to the members of the government, and the people of the Province will not forget it either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Because you cannot stand in your place today and seriously hope that people are going to buy the foolish argument that is being put forward, that retroactive pay, courtroom furniture, and a new recording system for the provincial court judges and the justice system, were demanded and deemed urgent so that they could get it today and spend it tomorrow; not on your life.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased today to stand and make a few comments on Bill 8. Certainly, as I listened over the past hour or couple of hours to my colleagues here in the House, it is understandable why it is necessary to stand and make a few comments to pass what I believe are major concerns, Madam Chair, with special warrants.

I just like to take a moment, if I could, to say - if you listened to the Member for Ferryland, he certainly puts across quite evidently what he believes is a breach of the Financial Administration Act in this Province.

MR. BARRETT: What he believes. Yes, what he believes (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if you will wait for a moment, I will get to it.

I say, Madam Chair, the Member for Ferryland puts across what he believes is a breach of the Financial Administration Act. You do not have to believe him, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Then we have the Member for Kilbride get on his feet and put across what he believes is a breach of the Financial Administration Act. I say to all members, you do not have to believe him either, but I believe, Madam Chair, that we have to take into consideration the comments of the Auditor General, a person who is put in place in this Province, whom we trust to look over the accounts of this Province, to look over the accounts of the government, and to bring back here a fair report and lay it on the Table in this Legislature.

I would just, if I could for a moment, make a comment right from the book of the Auditor General that was tabled here only a few days ago. I would just like to read, if I could, a comment on special warrants, "Special warrants are used to make payments not approved in the original budget, thereby increasing Government expenditures and either increasing its deficit or decreasing its surplus."

I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to just take note of this comment, "Since 1997 my Office has expressed concern that many special warrants issued each year did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act as, in our opinion, they were not urgently required."

We just heard the Member for Kilbride put forward some of those examples in relation to the justice system here in the Province.

This is important, Madam Chair. It is very important. "The use of special warrants provides Government with the flexibility to "adjust" its cash surplus or deficit and produce a result it desires."

There is a figure here which I would like to - and, as the Member for Kilbride just touched on, since 1996 special warrants have taken on a whole new idea in this Province, since the days of Premier Tobin. This is a list, right in the Auditor General's report itself, Special Warrants in Contravention of the Financial Administration Act: in 1997, a total of $36.9 million; in 1998, $30.9 million; in 1999, $95 million in special warrants in contravention of the Financial Administration Act; in the year 2000, $70.8 million; in 2001, $33 million; and in 2002, $33.1 million.

I would not mind, Madam Chair, if we were here and we came forward here in the fall of the year, and the minister stood in her place and presented the special warrants that were used in July or August in relation to something like a forest fire that we have had over the past couple of years. I would not mind that, as a member here in the Legislature, but what I do mind and have a concern with is what I believe, and as other members have expressed, is contempt of the House, contempt for the people here in the House. There is no justification that can be given by either minister on that side of the House when we are sitting here in the House of Assembly and there are special warrants to the tune of $48.5 million that were issued here on March 15, March 22, and March 27 - $48.5 million as we sit here in the House.

The Member for Ferryland put forward the questions he raised on March 25 in the year 2002, just earlier this year, when he asked the minister: Were there any special warrants approved thus far? There was no answer. And there had been on March 15 and on March 22. In his question he asked: Were there going to be any approved in the next couple of days? Again, we had no answer, and again on March 27 there were several million dollars that was put forward. As I said, $48.5 million while we sat here in the House of Assembly.

Expenditures, as we all know after being here for so many years, should be brought to this House with a supply bill. When we are sitting in the House is a time to do that; not to spend the money, not to put money in to make the Budget look good; not to come back in four or five or six months down the road and lay expenditures on the table that we should have known about; the questions were asked, that we should have known about here in March. As I said earlier, as far as I am concerned and as many members on this side of the House are concerned, and I am sure the people of the Province are concerned, it is a contempt for the people here in the House. It is a contempt for the House of Assembly.

Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance stands on her feet and asks us on this side of the House: Are you against drugs for seniors? Are you against putting money into health care? Are you people against, on that side of the House, putting money into education in this Province? Are you people, on that side of the House, against putting money into social services? Well, the answer to all of the questions is: No.

If for a moment, Madam Chair, we stood in this House and felt that we were going to stop the seniors from having their drugs, or stop money from going into the educational system that is rightfully needed, or stop money from going out to social services to somebody who is waiting for a cheque, we would stand on this side of the House and approve that. We would not obstruct it in any way, shape or form. We are not against that. What we are against is a budget that comes down on March 21 - and if people on the opposite side were doing their homework they would know what expenditures were needed. While there are always things that happen - and that is why we have the special warrant legislation - and we are not sure of the expenditures that may be. That is understandable, as I touched on earlier, when I spoke earlier.

What I am concerned about is that when we have a budget that comes down on March 21, and six days prior to that, we have a special warrant. The very day after the Budget was tabled here in the House on March 21, we had a special warrant on March 22; several. We are not talking hundreds of dollars. We are not talking thousands. We are not even talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are talking millions and millions and millions of dollars that we do not have an opportunity, as legislators here in the House of Assembly, to debate and to ask questions and to raise the concerns that are needed. That is why we have a budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: That is why we have a budget process - where the government lays on the table of the House of Assembly, to all members present, what the expenditures are going to be in the upcoming year - that we have an opportunity, through Budget Debate, through committee stage, through the committees of the House, to go out and ask questions and to raise the concerns and certainly put forward any issues that we have. That is why we have a budget process, but what we have here is a clear contempt of the budget process; a clear contempt of the House of Assembly; a clear contempt of the legislation that is before the House of Assembly, that is being adopted here under the Financial Administration Act.

Madam Chair, to stand in their places today, any minister, any member of this government and try to justify special warrants of $48.5 million in the very month that the Budget was being brought to this House of Assembly is nothing short of contempt. It is an act of deceit that we have seen here over the past year. We will not stand on this side of the House and think that because it is five, six, or seven months down the road that we are just going to roll over on this side of the House and say: yes, go ahead and have your special warrants; go for it. Continue the practice that you started here under Premier Tobin. Madam Chair, right next to the Budget - one day, twenty-four hours. It is unbelievable, that twenty-four hours after the Budget was presented here in the House we had millions of dollars worth of special warrants signed off. We asked the minister, but she cannot answer. She cannot answer if there were any special warrants put forward in the month of March, as the Member for Ferryland asked her. She could not answer that question. I would like to know: who signs off on these warrants? Is it discussed around the Cabinet Table that millions of dollars are being spent? If it was being discussed around the Cabinet Table you would think that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board would know that these expenditures, the millions and millions of dollars, certainly need to be brought forward and given to the House of Assembly for proper debate, whether it is under a supply bill or whatever the case may be.

Madam Chair, we cannot stand here on this side of the House or sit here on this side of the House and say that this is okay because it is not okay. There is a process in place and the process in place is to table the expenditures of the government from year to year to year and that process is called a budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Chair, that process is called a budget. As I said earlier, if we were standing here and dealing with special warrants that come up - as special warrants are put in place for, urgent things that happen during the year - that is understandable. We cannot foresee the future, without a doubt.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, just to make a few closing comments, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: As I said before, we have a process in place and it is called a budget. The reason we have that budget, Madam Chair, is so we can clearly identify the expenditure of the government and here in the Opposition, we can clearly ask the questions and raise the concerns of the people here in the Province. To not follow the process that is here, to bring in special warrants days before and a few days after the Budget is presented in the House, is nothing short of contempt of the House of Assembly. I certainly feel, on this side of the House, that we have no other recourse but to raise that issue, and continue to raise it, to make the people of this Province aware of the contempt of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board as it comes to dealing with the expenditures of the government, Madam Chair, as we present them here in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have been listening with great interest this evening to the debate in this hon. House and I would like to make just a few short comments on these special warrants. I am a member of Treasury Board and, of course, I have sat in at the Cabinet meetings when all of these special warrants were discussed and approved. Everyone of them were discussed both at Treasury Board and Cabinet.

Today we are speaking to nine warrants; not back like in the good old days like some members opposite have been talking about when we had forty-four special warrants go through, I believe it was, in 1989. In 1988 there were eighty-three and then thirty in 1987; all of these. I am not sure if it was the Member for Ferryland or the Member for Kilbride - for Ferryland, I believe - who said: Oh, you know, you can keep the number down but the amount up. Well, you know, the amount was $104 million in 1988 and it is only $51 million here for the nine warrants.

I want to talk about why these special warrants were necessary and to talk to one or two that were just absolutely ridiculed across the House just a few minutes ago. You know, in health care the issues were life safety. They were needed drugs for seniors in this Province. Some of them were about security, some were about asbestos removal and some were about air quality. Many times air quality problems come up right after the budget might be done. Who is to say when they are going to come up during the year? You don't budget for air quality emergency problems, Madam Chair. We all know that in education we had many for a short time, but this government addressed them both through the budget when we knew about it at budget time, but also through special warrants when it was necessary. In Justice, issues like legal aid and related services are very, very important and needed to be dealt with. All of these, as I have said, were discussed extensively at Treasury Board and at Cabinet.

Special warrants, Madam Chair, we all know are used for continuing services, not as the members across the way are alluding to, that there is something awful and fretful in what we are doing. When you talk about continuing services, one of the line items that they didn't mention was the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation that needed equipment, and we supplied that equipment. It was done through a special warrant. It was not something that we knew about at the time of the budget.

One of the ones that I have heard the most ridiculed here tonight was from the Member for Kilbride, when he stood up and said to the people of this Province: How could the purchase of recording equipment for courtrooms be considered an item necessary to be brought through under a special warrant? Well, I can say that it made great sense to do that, that it was for a continuing service, that also there was great justification for it. I remember being at Treasury Board when it was justified very well and then again at Cabinet.

The law says that all proceedings in a court must be recorded. Little did we know when the budget was done, but we started to have some very serious problems with the recording equipment in this Province. Now, we could have gone out and spend thousands of dollars fixing the old recording equipment, but this government was prudent, addressed the urgent need that was there to have the problem fixed, but decided that, why would you go out and spend thousands of dollars fixing this recording equipment when you knew that what was really needed here was a modern system of digital recording. So, why would you go out and spend thousands on recording it, when what you could have was to spend money properly, put some extra money with it. Rather than replace an old outdated system, you would put in a new modern digital system. That is exactly what was done. It was prudent spending for the taxpayers of this Province, money that we needed to save, money that we knew was going to be needed in health and education, money that, when we save it, that is where we spend it for the people of this Province. It was not sensible to wait for the Supply Bill, as the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's was just alluding to. It was not sensible at all. It was prudent to do what we did for the people of this Province and for the court system that had to have the repairs done but said: Look, you know, the Chief Justice was telling us that the way to do this is not to waste money on repairs but to put a new digital system in, and that was done. There was no way to know months before that, that needed to be done.

This government, Madam Chair, did not circumvent and did not break any laws, as is being alluded to on the other side. These expenditures are on behalf of the people of this Province: drugs for seniors, air quality problems, life safety issues in various institutions, legal aid. There was no breach of the Financial Administration Act.

All special warrants have been tabled in accordance with the requirement of the Financial Administration Act. Special warrants are a common practice in all jurisdictions in Canada. You know, it is being talked about here tonight like we are doing something underhanded and something that is not quite right and so on. This is common practice in all Legislatures in this country. Special warrants can cover any category of expenditure, such as: salaries, cost of fighting forest fires - I have seen that several times in the seven years that I have been sitting in this hon. House - social assistance costs, and costs of necessary investments in public infrastructure, as I have just described with the recording equipment decision that was made under special warrants for the recording equipment in our courthouses.

Utilizing special warrants for continuing services when the Legislature is in session has been a long-standing practice and is permitted, Madam Chair, under the Financial Administration Act. A minister is required to sign a statement indicating that a need exists before a special warrant can be issued. In addition, all related documents must be tabled in the Legislature in accordance with strict time frames, like we are doing here this evening - it is exactly what we are doing here this evening - and government must eventually introduce a Supplementary Supply Bill to obtain approval of the Legislature for special warrants, what we are doing here this evening. Therefore there is ample opportunity for debate and discussion, also what we are doing here this evening.

It does not seem practical to attempt to define what would constitute an urgent situation. As I have said, as the critic stood up just now and made the comments about the recording situation, sure, on a piece of paper that does not look very urgent. It does not look like something that could not wait, but why would you waste the people's money? The need is urgent when we know it is the law that you have to record everything that happens in a court of law. It has to be recorded. Why wait and go out and spend all the money to repair something when you can save money that can be used for other valuable health services?

The government of day, this government, all governments, must be free to make decisions that are in the public interest, and that is exactly what we have done as a government, so long as they are ultimately being held accountable, and that is exactly what is happening in this Legislature. As these decisions were made, we knew that they would be coming to this Legislature and that is exactly what is happening. The requirements of the Financial Administration Act ensure that the government is held accountable. We are being held accountable and we are proud to do so. These expenditures are on behalf of the people of this Province and are very well justified, Madam Chair.

Tonight, Madam Chair, we are adhering to the law and reporting to the Legislature as we are supposed to do, as we are required to do, and that is exactly why I stand here this evening. We are following the law. These are expenditures on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. These are needed expenditures, they are all within the law, and I am proud to stand to support this motion.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to say a few words on this Bill 8. I have been listening to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. It is all well and good to hear those people on their feet trying to justify, defend, and more importantly trying to rationalize, what cannot be defended. They know full well that over the past number of years, particularly since 1997, the Auditor General has reported consistently in this House of Assembly, when she puts her reports in each year, the previous Auditor General and the present one now who presented his only a week or so ago, Madam Chair, that this Administration has consistently contravened the Public Tender Act. They have a history of contravening the Public Tender Act, they know full well on that side of the House.

Why, Madam Chair, in March of each year - and it is consistently done - do they pass special warrants, signed by the minister, in the last month of the fiscal year? Why do they do that? It is because they want to manipulate the bottom line of the Budget. Why do they want to manipulate the bottom line? Each year, last year we saw some contracts coming to end and they would have to be negotiated. For one, the nurses. If they came out at the end of the year and had a surplus, then they would not be able to make the argument that we cannot afford to give these individuals a decent raise. That is just one of the reasons why they would want to manipulate to make the Budget look worse than it actually is.

For example, each year we see the Minister of Finance - recently, in the past few years - saying that we are doing well. We have a $30 million deficit. Last year, she predicted a $30 million deficit. Our critic, the critic for Finance, the Member for Ferryland, made the statement back then that this deficit would end up being between $400 million and $500 million. When we saw the Auditor General's report come in here, he talks now of the deficit for the year ending 2001 to be some $473.1 million in debt. They are consistently trying to manipulate the bottom line of the Budget.

Now, I was listening to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education a few minutes ago and she tried to rationalize the expenditures on these special warrants last year when we talked about, on this side of the House - the Member for Kilbride - the recording system for the courts in the Province. The Member for Kilbride said it wasn't an urgent, urgent need, and she tried to rationalize it.

MR. E. BYRNE: We never said it wasn't needed.

MR. J. BYRNE: We never said it wasn't needed. Of course, we could deal with it in proper procedure, following the rules of the House of Assembly, the laws of the land, if they were following the laws of the land, Madam Chair. They decided not to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education tried to rationalize it by saying that if they did not go out and purchase this new digital equipment, rather than throwing good money after bad - in my terms, from what she said - that to buy a new system they would save money.

Well, I say to her, why don't all the ministers on that side of the House think the same way? Obviously they do not. Only today in this House of Assembly, Madam Chair, I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about the Hull 100, how they started out and purchased that for $900,000 and they were prepared to spend $2.9 million on this. Now, they are up over $7 million on the Hull 100. We had it in the system for four years. It is not in the system to be utilized yet. It is still out being repaired. There is work to be done on it, and up over $7 million and growing. Yet, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education can stand in this House of Assembly with the face and the gall and say that they had to have a special warrant to spend on recording systems to save money. Madam Chair, it is not logical. I would not even say it is coherent to be getting on with such statements.

Madam Chair, another thing - the Minister of Mines and Energy. I find that any time we are in this House of Assembly having a debate on the issues, and that side of the House seems to be losing, in their minds, the debate, what do they do? They always go back to the issue of the Sprung Greenhouse and the $23 million that the government of the day wasted on the Sprung Greenhouse, but they refuse to get into their heads that, at that point in time - there was $23 million - maybe the extent of the project was too much, but it created 200-300 jobs for two to three years. Now, let's compare that to what this Administration has done over the years and not created one job. We have $60 million spent on the Lower Churchill negotiations, not one job created.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-five gone on the old deal.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thirty-five gone on the old deal, yes, but let's look at a few more, Madam Chair. Let's look at the cottage hospital contracts. These people want to go back to the past. Let's go back past the time, go back to Trans City with this administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Five million dollars spent, Madam Chair, and not one job created; not one.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty million extra by the time it is finally ended.

MR. J. BYRNE: As the critic for Finance says, there will be another extra $30 million on this before it is ended. Now, that is $35 million there, $60 million on the Lower Churchill contract. That is $95 million and not one job created, Madam Chair.

Now, let's look at Atlantic Leasing Limited, $4.2 million. Now, Madam Chair, we are up to $100 million, not one job created, and they have the face and the gall on that side of the House to get up and talk about Sprung. At least that created 200 to 300 jobs for two to three years. They have spent $100 million and not a job created yet, Madam Chair.

We are not finished yet. Let's talk about the Cabot 500 Corporation, Madam Chair, $1 million on the Cabot 500. We have to know what that was about, of course. That was the group of individuals who were working on the Cabot 500 who were fired by this administration, by the Liberal administration, that cost the taxpayers $1 million and not one job created.

Let's talk about the present Mayor of the City of St. John's, Andy Wells, $600,000, fired from the Public Utilities Board, not one job created. As a matter of fact, got rid of a job there and it cost them $600,000.

Let's talk about Tors Cove Excavation now, Madam Chair, again a contract for an individual company taken back on them. It cost the taxpayers of the Province $1 million. In the meantime, it is costing a number of jobs in that company. Now, that is that.

Let's talk about the fiasco of this administration when they want to talk about Sprung Green House, where the previous Premier, Brian Tobin, went to Labrador with the previous Premier of Quebec, Bouchard; a $1 million campaign. Well, I suppose $1 million in the minds of those individuals - not one job created, by the way - was not that bad when this administration, Madam Chair, are willing to spend $750,000 on an ad campaign to sell the Voisey's Bay deal. We have not heard the last of that yet, Madam Chair.

Even worse, we see this administration spending $250,000 more recently, Madam Chair, on an ad campaign for self promotion of the Premier of this Province. What do we see, Madam Chair? After spending $250,000, the most recent poll comes out and the Liberal Party is flatlined.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Again, Madam Chair, not one job created.

Now, Madam Chair, I am up to, I am sure they would say, $110 million, no jobs created. When they get up on that side of the House and they try to defend or to rationalize a debate in their own minds, they have the gall to talk about Sprung. Madam Chair, if I were on that side of the House I would hang my head in shame before I would bring that up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: At least we created 200 to 300 jobs at that point in time, back a few years ago.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is over there now -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave granted.

MR. J. BYRNE: No leave?

Madam Chair, I will continue in due course.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, it is always interesting to be talking about financial issues in the House of Assembly. I was not going to stand up, but then I heard the member opposite say something about the Sprung Greenhouse. I did not know what he was talking about for a minute, but history is important. When he said it, I did not even realize it, but I have a copy of 1988 Budget right here, which has the Sprung Greenhouse on it. It is a very nice looking picture, actually. It is interesting because, if you look at the Budget, we are talking about a deficit this year of about $90 million projected. That is downsized now to under $60 million; I think it is around $60 million. I just want to read something for you, just for history. It is good for all of us to know the perspectives about how we got the debt we have today.

Back in 1988, I was in the House of Assembly, and there are a few others here today who were there, and it is important to know history. We teach history. We have a new history course, Minister of Education, in our school now, and it is good thing we do because we need to know our history. It is very important that we know our financial history.

Madam Chair, in 1988, the last year that the other side, who are the Opposition, produced a Budget - in 1988, if you combine the current account and the capital account, was $295 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Two hundred and ninety-five million dollars, current and capital account deficit. We are talking this year - that is in 1988 dollars, you have a $300 million deficit. That did not include the pension fund contributions.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, it did not include it.

Next year alone, next year's Budget that we have to think about for the coming year, includes $170 million for pension plan contributions because somebody did not do it. So we, next year, have to put $170 million into the pension plans.

This is the Budget of 1988, $300 million, without dealing with the pension plans, $300 million which today would be about CPI for fifteen years, you know, the Sprung Greenhouse, the economic policy.

Now, a number of members opposite were not there, and I know the Leader of the Opposition was not there and all of that, but history is important because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, because a number of members -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Madam Chair, it is interesting to note that, whenever the Sprung Greenhouse issue is brought up here on this side of the House, someone on that side - it used to be the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Efford - always had this book, pamphlet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Recipes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Recipes or whatever, with respect to the Sprung Greenhouse, Madam Chair.

I want to say this, and the members opposite should listen. This is an important point to make. They should relax and listen. They must have felt that the whole issue with the Sprung Greenhouse, the facility that was built in Mount Pearl back a few years ago and created 200-300 jobs for two to three years, must be very important to these individuals over here because, simply - and they should realize this now - the only one who is in this House of Assembly at this point in time is the former Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, who is sitting on that side of the House at this point in time, and they welcomed him with open arms.

It must be very important to these individuals here now to accept the former minister who used to be with us. Now, Madam Chair, he sits on that side of the House. They welcomed him with open arms, so they must be in agreement with that project in the first place.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the interjection of the member opposite, but, again, history is important. I think history is the thing. We need to understand history because, if you are going to go somewhere, you have to know where you came from. It is really important.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember that when (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: We will get to the Lower Churchill.

The thing is, Madam Chair, that history - when we talk about the deficit, we are dealing with a deficit, we have been used to trying to wrestle the deficit to the ground on this side of the House and we have had to make some tough decisions. In the last ten years we were faced with the cod crisis, the fish crisis, and in the middle of all that we had to deal with the big, gigantic deficits that we were left with when we took over the government back in 1989. It is really important to know. It is really important. When you read these numbers today, I did not realize it when I went back and I started reading these numbers. I could not believe it. I could not believe that the deficit in 1988 was $300 million. I could not believe it. I said: It cannot be the correct number, right?

When I heard that, when I looked at the numbers, I said, $300 million, the deficit in 1989, add CPI to that, add the fact that we had to fix all the pension plans because they were all in a mess. In 1989, one of the first things Clyde Wells did when he became Premier was do a study of the pension plans because they were all in difficult financial shape. We have ended up over here for the last number of years having to clean up a lot of problems financially. When I see what the Minister of Finance has done here in the last couple of years, I have to say that I am pretty amazed. There has been a lot of work done. She has done a great job, our Minister of Finance, a great job, as far as I am concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: You know, we are dealing with Ottawa, Madam Chair. We all have a problem here; we are dealing with Ottawa. We have to face off with Ottawa, and that is what we are doing over here. We are figuring out some new ways to deal with Ottawa to get more revenue. That is the other problem we have, and that is where we have to concentrate. We have to concentrate on that issue, but right now, compared to the previous history of another Administration, this crowd over here have done a pretty good job, I have to tell you, Madam Chair. I think we have done a very decent job when you look at the facts, when you look at the numbers, when you look at what you had to work with, when you look at the economy. It took a big hit back in 1992 with the fishery crisis and other situations that have occurred since then, and then you had the federal government dealing with a deficit downloading health care expenditures to us, downloading education expenditures to us, I would say to the tune of about $600 million in the last three or four years alone. I mean, 90 per cent of the health care expenditure increases - we have what? Forty-five per cent in the last five years in health care alone? Ninety per cent of that, we have done it from this side of the House without the federal government, without federal money. We have done it here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have made it a priority and other things have suffered, Madam Chair, because we said health care was the first priority.

When you look at that, that is pretty good management, I think, overall. Yes, there has been a scattered error or problem here and there, but when you look at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have a crowd laughing at - I have tell you, Madam Chair, when I hear that, that gets me going because, do you know what? I was going to say, when I stood up, that if it was the same date in 1988, I would be here tonight, but I could not say that because the House was not open because Brian Peckford would not open it in the fall. There was no fall session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We had a real democracy going then, I tell you, no fall sessions, Madam Chair. If I was standing here, I would not be here. I would be talking to myself, as a matter of fact.

To go back to democracy, we are doing that on this side because at least we here tonight talking about the problem, and that is important to do, talk about the problem. Understanding that you have one and then coming up with a strategy to deal with it. That is what we have been working on over here. You know, I understand the obligation of the Opposition, what they had to do, but I think also the public should know the perspective from where we were and where we are today. If you look at the deficit today compared to the 1988 deficit, my gosh, that would be down to almost zero or we would be in a surplus position on the dollar value of the day. That is the fact. Not the opposite, that is the fact.

What we did in 1989, when we took over, we put the capital account and the current account together and called it one deficit and we faced the music on that, and that was important for us to do.

That is just a bit of history because it is important that we know our history because, as we go forward with the financial planning for the Province for the future, we also have to wrestle with our biggest problem, which is the federal government. We have to deal with Ottawa. We have to find a way to deal with them effectively and I hope, Mr. Chair, that we come up with some solutions to that problem because we have to get aggressive in dealing with Ottawa because they have not dealt with us appropriately on a whole bunch of fronts.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is time that we deal with them right.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. K. AYLWARD: No.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words on the Supplementary Supply Bill before the House, and I want to talk in the context of the previous speaker's suggestion that his government has actually faced the music.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what the problem is with this particular piece of legislation. You know, we come here every year in the spring and we have this big formal Budget. The place is blocked. We have the galleries blocked up on both sides. We have special guests sitting on the floor of the Legislature. We have TV cameras outside, and even before the House was televised we allowed, by unanimous consent, cameras into the House of Assembly to take pictures. It was a great occasion, every year a big solemn occasion, as if the future of the Province turned on the words of the Minister of Finance. What were the numbers going to be?

We had political scientists outside, economists, commentators, all sorts of people in the galleries, dependent on the words of the Minister of Finance. A very solemn occasion of state, Mr. Chairman, where people expect to be told what is going on in the Province. People expect to know that what they are hearing from the mouth of the Minister of Finance, what they are seeing in the documents that are so secretly nurtured beforehand, what we are hearing from the mouth and documentation of the government is, in fact, the financial state of the Province.

We even have a lock-up, Mr. Chairman. For a few hours before the Budget comes down, we are entitled to see these precious documents which are supposed to reveal the truth about the financial state of the Province.

What we have here is proof that the financial state of the Province is not being made known in a Budget, and this government has been criticized for manipulating the numbers, by the Auditor General, suggesting the moving around of cash amounts, moving around of obligations, presenting budgets in particular ways, using one-time monies. All of this has been designed and has the effect of confusing the public about the true state of financial affairs.

They have not faced the music, Mr. Chairman. They have failed to face the music in showing the public the true state of financial affairs, and that has caused a lack of credibility not only in this government but about public finances generally.

Now, when we hear the Minister of Finance talk about the state of the Budget, - one week with a $93 million deficit and the next week, with documents tabled in the House, a $480 million deficit - no one knows what to believe anymore, so we have a credibility problem. This particular bill before the House, the Supplementary Supply Bill - and I am not suggesting that any particular item in the Supplementary Supply should not have been spent, or would not have been spent by another government if they happened to be in the same boat. These expenditures may well have been very necessary at the time that they were made, but the reality is, they were not disclosed to the public or to the people of the Province. That is why we have, in November, Supplementary Supply for money that was spent in the financial year ending March 31, 2002; money that was spent during that year, that was known during that year was spent, and now here we are in November dealing with this. Why weren't we dealing with this in March, or even in April, or even in May, when the House was in session?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We were not here in June, I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. We were not here then.

AN HON. MEMBER: We were here June 2.

MR. HARRIS: We were here June 2? I do not think we were here on June 2. We have been here June 2 on other occasions. We have been here June 9, and we have been here June 10, but since we have the new calendar we seem to be out of here before May 24. Ever since that new calendar has come in, we haven't been here after May 24, but we could have dealt with it in May because the expenditures were known then. They were known in April and they were known in March, but there is a reason why we did not deal with them in that period time and the reason is that the minister did not want the people to know that the state of affairs that was presented in the Budget was not the true state of affairs. That is why this bill was not before the House in March or April, because the Minister of Finance did not want the people of the Province to know the true state of the financial affairs of the Province.

When we come here for this big elaborate Budget production with the floor of the House filled with dignitaries, with the people in the galleries who are interested in the state of the Province and interested in the particular decisions of the Minister of Finance, when we have the cameras outside, the economists, the political commentators and the reporters all milling around, turning on every word of the Minister of Finance, we want to know that it is the truth. The trouble is that we do not because we do not have the full state before the people, and this bill is full evidence of that.

I think, to end up where I started, Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the Minister of Environment, said that this government has faced the music. Well, this government has not faced the music. They have continued to live in a set of circumstances in which the people of the Province do not know what is really going on and are losing confidence, not just in the government but confidence in the true state of the financial affairs of the Province that they need to know. They are entitled to know and they can make their own judgement, but they cannot make their own judgement if they are not given the facts. By having this type of legislation and this type of way of dealing with the public finances, the public do not know that true state of facts and cannot make up their own mind.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am not supporting this legislation and I think the message needs to be sent to the government that they cannot do business this way with the people's finances.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to stand tonight and speak on Bill 8 on behalf of the thirty MHAs and the thirty districts that got left out of last year's Budget debate, because, in essence, we had $53 million being spent by a Cabinet alone. So, on behalf of all of us, and I am sure I speak on behalf of the backbenchers on the other side as well, because they have to go out to their districts and apologize on behalf of their Cabinet colleagues as to why they were not included in the discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I listened with some interest as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education spoke as she talked about the sense of urgency. It is somewhat ironic because in that same budget year they were talking about, and I look at Bill 8, it says $34.7 million was spent in Health and Community Services.

One of the items the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education identified was an air quality issue in the Peninsula's Health Care Corporation. There was such a major sense of urgency to get it done because it was an air quality issue. I will tell the minister, for three consecutive years I was a part of that organization and we made the request to have that air quality issue dealt with in three consecutive budget years and there was never a sense of urgency. All of a sudden, there is a sense of urgency. They introduced a special warrant to deal with something that was on the table for some three years.

What is ironic though, Mr. Chair, is that in that same budget year, as I reminded the Minister of Health and Community Services, the Minister of Finance in that year said: We are going to provide adequate funding to allow the Health Care Corporation to do twenty cardiac surgeries per week. Obviously, there was no sense of urgency to have that done because here we are in the year 2002 and we are still only doing an average of about thirteen and a half cases per week.

Here, within the budget process, we sit in this House and debate an allocation to allow us to get up to twenty cases per week and this government totally ignores that direction and that vote that we gave to them in this House to proceed in that direction and then, on the other hand, turns around, goes behind our back and introduces some special warrants to spend money that we do not have a chance to debate at all. That is somewhat ironic, I say, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to comment on a couple of points. Again, I was inspired, I guess, by the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education by some of the points that she had made because I think it is important to point out a couple of items that she did raise. One, she reminded this House that special warrants happen in every jurisdiction across the country; two, we would agree with that. This does happen in every jurisdiction across the country, but what she failed to tell this House, what she failed to share with all of us, was that in other jurisdictions they do not come up with special warrants when the House is sitting. There is a major difference.

Those special warrants were introduced during a time when we were sitting in this House. On Thursdays, when Cabinets meet, obviously in the morning, they sat up in the Cabinet room and made a decision to issue special warrants, spend some money that was not included in the Budget. That very afternoon we would have been sitting in this House. Cabinet, at that time, or the minister at that time, not only did she not share it with the House but she chose not to bring it to us for any kind of consideration.

One of the things that we need to talk about is this issue of urgency. I think the minister asked us in the very beginning of this debate to talk about and debate the merits of the issues that we spent the money for. I do not think anybody in this House, when we look at the warrants, would have had any objection, had the minister brought those issues to the House and we had a full discussion and full debate, because we would look at the issues. I say to the minister, on the merits of the issues, I think we would have all concurred that if they were included in the Budget, or if, in fact, she had brought them to the House, we would have had some discussion but I think we can give her our assurances that we would have, in fact, endorsed those expenditures because, on the merits of the issues, they are important and it is something that, as a Province, we should have been doing.

I think, where we talk about a process, we cannot ignore a process. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy when he says, let's ignore the process, I think that would be doing this Province and this process in the Legislature a grave injustice. I say to the minister, Mr. Chair, we would undermine the integrity of this House. We would undermine the integrity of the people who sit in this House, who have a responsibility to debate issues of public importance. We have a responsibility to be able to deal with issues of public interest. The expenditure of the Province's money, the expenditure of our taxpayers' money, is a significant issue of public importance. So, I say to the minister, the process is something that we cannot ignore.

We have the laws of the land. We have legislation passed in this House. The ministers then, in fact, put in place regulations that flow from that legislation, and that governs how we must function. If there is to be some semblance of order, if there is to be some reasonableness on how we conduct business in this Province, we have to be able to comply with the established process for making changes to legislation. We have to comply with the process as we deal with budgetary issues.

When I read an Auditor General's report and it says, "Since 1997 my Office has expressed concern that many special warrants issued each year did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act...", I think that sums it all up. We have - not members of this Legislature - we have the Auditor General who is appointed by this Assembly to, in fact, do an objective evaluation of the financial administration and the financial management of this Province and, in so doing, that person considers the various pieces of legislation that exist in the Province, the various pieces of legislation that govern how we function in this House, and, in fact, how we spend our finances.

Whenever you see an independent person with this person's credentials acting in a capacity of total independence, passing that kind of judgement on how we are spending money, I have to say to the members of this House that we have reached a sad point in our history when we are, in fact, deciding to ignore the rules that govern how we function, we decide to ignore the rules that dictate how we, in fact, should spend our money, we ignore the rules that dictate how we should function as a Legislature, we then - not only that, but I think, as I mentioned in my earlier comments, that in this kind of process we automatically ignore thirty districts in this Province. We ignore thirty districts and we ignore thirty people who sit in this House who represent those districts. Any time, Mr. Chair, when the members of this Assembly, when the members of government offices, decide that they can ignore the majority of the people in this Province then that it is a sad commentary where we have reached in our history and it is time that we had some change.

I challenge to the members opposite that if they are going to continue with this kind of blatant abuse of their power, blatant abuse of the position that they hold, blatant abuse of the trust that has been bestowed upon them by the people of this Province, then I think it is time that we call for a change. The people of this Province are asking for it. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador can sense that this government is now running rampant, with total disregard for their wishes, and I think it is about time that we now look to these people on the opposite side and ask them to recognize the wishes of the people who put us here and to respect the role that we have as MHAs, and to not ignore the wishes of the people and to not continue to abuse the power that you have in holding this government.

Mr. Chair, it has been my pleasure to make some comments about Bill 8, but it is very unfortunate, extremely unfortunate, that we have to be discussing a bill tonight when, in fact, the issues that were here could easily have been discussed with a much more fuller debate of the issues during the last sitting last winter.

I say to the minister, in future -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just to conclude, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Do I have leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The Minister of Transportation does not want me to have leave. Minister of Transportation, do I have leave?

MR. BARRETT: No leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is my pleasure to stand this evening and have a few words on Bill 8, a bill which the minister would like the people to believe that they are operating within the confines of the Financial Administration Act; however, the Auditor General has the following to say, "Special warrants are used to make payments not approved in the original budget, thereby increasing Government expenditures and either increasing its deficit or decreasing its surplus. Since 1997 my Office has expressed concern that many special warrants issued each year did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act as, in our opinion, they were not urgently required."

That is important, because the members on the opposite side of the House who have spoken this evening keep stressing the fact that these warrants were urgent. "The use of special warrants provides Government with the flexibility to "adjust" its cash surplus or deficit and produce a result it desires." Special warrants in contravention of the Financial Administration Act are as follows: In the year 1997, $36.9 million; in 1998, $30.9 million; in 1999, $95 million; in 2000, $70.8 million; in 2001, $33 million; and, in 2002, $33.1 million.

The minister keeps referring to emergencies for the people. She would have the people believe that the members on this side of the House are against drugs for seniors, against money for health care, against money for education. The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education was up and she also spoke of emergencies. Are the following items that warrants were issued for emergencies? Retroactive salaries for judges, would that be an emergency? Furniture for the judges' chambers, an emergency? Recording equipment for the courtroom, an emergency, a reason to contravene the Financial Administration Act?

In reference to the recording equipment, the Minister Responsible for Post-Secondary Education spoke of the prudence of purchasing state-of-the-art digital equipment, new equipment, rather than wasting the taxpayers' money by executing repairs to the existing equipment. I wonder, does the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education realize that in our hospitals today there is MRI equipment and CAT Scanners that are totally outdated and have been deemed to be outdated? They are operating far less functionally than they should be.

MS KELLY: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, I was listening, but I also would say to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, if the people who are listening to us out here this evening had their choice, would they rather purchase digital recording equipment for the judges' chambers or would they rather purchase state-of-the-art equipment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: I pause now because the members on the opposite side of the House seem to think it is funny that we have outdated equipment in our hospitals while I am referring to them thinking it is an emergency to purchase state-of-the-art recording equipment for a judge's chamber rather than purchasing state-of-the-art equipment for the hospitals; for instance, the MRI equipment.

Constantly we have heard members on the other side of this House this evening get up and try to portray us as not wanting these warrants to be issued because we would be against drugs for seniors, we would be against money for education, and we would be against money for health care.

I say to the member on the opposite side, had you brought to the House of Assembly that you wanted us to pass purchasing state-of-the-art equipment for the medical institutions in our Province then you would see a different story here this evening, but I guess you can get up and talk away anything.

The Minister of Finance, when asked by the Member for Ferryland back in March: Were there any warrants issued? She refused to answer the question, or skated so well around the question that she would put Elvis Stojko out of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS S. OSBORNE: I said that the Minister of Finance got up, when the Member for Ferryland asked her a question back in March about the special warrant, and she skated around it so well. She said she answered the question but she skated around it so well that she would put Elvis Stojko out of business. As I said, the -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, it wasn't meant as a compliment, I say to the minister. It meant that you skated around the answer so well that you did not give an answer at all.

Here we are standing tonight in this House of Assembly debating Bill 8, a bill that the government would like to have the people believe that there were no contraventions of the Financial Administration Act, when, in fact, our own Auditor General, a person whose duty it is to report to this hon. House of Assembly, has said that there were contraventions to the Financial Administration Act and that he is particularly concerned about the many years of contraventions that have been to the Financial Administration Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am delighted to stand and debate here this evening because what we are talking about is special warrants, and it is an area that is of great importance to the people of the Province. Special warrants should be of an urgent nature. The special warrants that were put through this House by the Minister of Finance were ranged in the many, many millions of dollars. Some of them were of an urgent nature, some of them were not an urgent nature.

Mr. Chairman, the reality here is that if the special warrants were brought before this House, the ones that were of an urgent nature, the ones that were important to the people of this Province, while the House was open, because many of these special warrants were put through while we were sitting. The contempt that was shown for the process, the contempt that was shown for this House of Assembly, and for each member of this House of Assembly, the contempt that was shown for the people of this Province by contravening the Act, as was pointed out by the Auditor General, the contempt that was shown, because, Mr. Chairman, if those special warrants were brought before this House, while the House was sitting, the special warrants that were snuck through, even though the Member for Ferryland had stood in the House and asked the Minister of Finance: Are there any special warrants coming through before the end of this month, the end of the fiscal period? The minister would not properly answer the question; would not give a reasonable answer to that question.

Those special warrants that were brought before this House that were of an urgent nature would have received absolutely no argument from this side. We would not have held them up. We would have been glad to approve the special warrants that were of an urgent nature in this House; but, the reality of it is, they had to sneak them through because some of the warrants were not of an urgent nature and that is why they were not brought before this House. That is why the members of this House were not granted the opportunity of finding out what those special warrants were until six or seven months after they were put through.

Now, you have to wonder why those special warrants were not brought before the House of Assembly, even though the House was sitting. The reason is clear, because the millions of dollars that were put through on special warrants would have affected the bottom line, would have had to been shown on the Budget, would have had to been accounted for if they would brought before the House. We were not given the opportunity to debate those special warrants. We were not given the opportunity or the privilege of finding out about those special warrants until several months later. Government was hoping, the Minister of Finance was hoping, the Premier was hoping, that by not allowing the Members of the House of Assembly the opportunity to discuss, to debate, to find out about these special warrants, that six or seven months after the fact, we would forget about them. They would be less important. They would no longer be an issue. They would not be a thorn in governments side, but we are not prepared to just let them slip through. We are not prepared to just let them go by without debate, without proper recognition in this House, and neither was the Auditor General.

The Auditor General saw fit to point out that these special warrants were in contravention of the act; that these special warrants that ranged in the millions of dollars were in contravention of the act, and we believe the Auditor General. We do not believe what has been said in this House tonight by the Minister of Finance, that everything was on the up and up.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I just heard the hon. member clearly say that he did not believe the minister. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that is unparliamentary. In this House we are hon. members and we are supposed to take each others words. To repudiate the words of any member of this House, I would suggest, is totally unparliamentary. We are supposed, as hon. members, to take the word of hon. members, on either side of the House. We may feel sometimes a difference of opinion but to specifically, to categorically, to empathically state that you do not believe what someone is saying, Mr. Chairman, I suggest is unparliamentary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I will just state the case in this way. We can use the word deceive, we can use the word mislead, we can use the word misrepresent, we can use the word fraudulent, we can use the word dishonest, all ruled to be parliamentary.

What the Member for St. John's South clearly said, and it is important to put this in context, that on this specific issue we have two opinions that are before us. One, that has been presented by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Secondly, a contravening opinion presented by the Auditor General. In our view, the Member for St. John's South has chosen to believe the Auditor General. That is what it is, and I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that there was nothing dishonorable or unparliamentary about his statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's South, if he wishes to recast his words, he may wish to do that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Was it unparliamentary?

CHAIR: We could check the records, but it is my belief, after checking with the Clerk, that the statement: We do not believe the minister, perhaps we will find in the records that is does say that that is unparliamentary. If you would like we could take a look at that, but maybe on reflection the Member for St. John's South would like to consider the words which he used and recast them.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, if it is found that my words are unparliamentary I will certainly remove those words from the record, but I will wait to see if they are found to be unparliamentary because I could have used, Mr. Chairman, indecent. I could have used insincere. I could have used misinforming. I could have used misrepresentations.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, let me clarify. The hon. the Opposition House Leader suggested that he could use the word fraudulent and the word deceit. I suggest to him that there is no authority which tells him that he can use those words because there is no list of words that can be used. Very often members, when they hear a word used unparliamentary, every time the word is used will say the word is unparliamentary. That is not so. Because a word is ruled by Mr. Chair or Mr. Speaker to be unparliamentary today does not mean that it is unparliamentary tomorrow, and because the word fraudulent is used to be unparliamentary does not mean that you can never use that word again in the English language in the House of Assembly. It all depends on the circumstance. It all depends on the context. It depends on the tone.

To suggest that you can use certain words because they have been ruled parliamentary is not to say that tomorrow they will not be used unparliamentary because one has to take into consideration the tone, the context. So, Mr. Chairman, to get up and list and say these are words we can use because they have been quoted in Beauchesne to be parliamentary does not mean that they will perpetually, does not mean that they can be eternally listed as words that are parliamentary. Mr. Chairman, it depends on the context.

I will just suggest and ask your Honour, in a quiet and modest manner, to check the usage of the sentence used by the hon. member just speaking because all of us here want to use parliamentary language.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Just to the point. Context is important and I want to reiterate the context in which was talked about. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board gave a particular explanation tonight. The converse of that explanation has been a completely different opinion to the point in this bill about contraventions to the Financial Administration Act offered by the Auditor General. In that context the Member for St. John's South chose to believe the Auditor General. Now that is the context in which it was given.

Now to the language, Mr. Chairman. It is 10:40 p.m., and I have been in night sittings a lot later than this, and who knows, this may set a record tonight. We are not really sure about that yet, but the fact of the matter is this. I have been in the House where Government House Leaders have stood up and said that my arm thrusting was unparliamentary. I have been in the House where my body language, apparently, was unparliamentary, and other members.

The fact of the matter is though, Mr. Chairman, as we see it, the context was correct. I am sure, as I am standing here in the House tonight at 10:39, that if the Chair finds that this remark was unparliamentary, I am sure the Member for St. John's South will do what the honourable thing is to do.

CHAIR: The Chair will review the records of Hansard in the morning and we will bring back a statement to that effect later.

The member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise with some reluctance to speak to this particular bill, Bill 8, to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of supplementary supply to Her Majesty. I say it with reluctance, Mr. Chair, because the case has been made, from this side of the House to that side of the House, but the message does not seem to be getting through. I feel that as an educator, I guess, repetition is necessary when learning is not occurring in times. The teacher in me tells me that we are going to have to repeat this argument time and time and time again because we have reluctant learners on the other side of the House. I have dealt with reluctant learners throughout my career. Repetition is one sure tried and true method of getting across a particular point, a particular debate.

Also, of course, I have to be quite careful with the language that I am using because this is a situation where the admission on that side of the House is certainly not there; the admission that the procedure that was used to bring forth these warrants was outside the act. It has been said - I do not know how many speakers have been up or how many times some of the speakers have been up, but it is not getting across. I am just sitting here saying: What can I get up and say that would get the message across? I am in a quandary here. I felt like going through the dictionary to find some new words, perhaps some new words.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I see the Government House Leader but I cannot hear what you are saying.

Now, here we go. Mr. Chair, I have to act as a priest and listen to the confessions of - how many members are on that side? How many members? I guess there could be - instead of listening to the individual confessions over there maybe general absolution would be in order. It is nice to know that there is an admission of sin on that side. I thought I heard the Government House Leader say that he was prepared to confess his sins, or the sin of the government, I would think. That is very interesting, and certainly we are all ears on this side. If anyone on that side wants to get up and make a testament, I think I would make that available.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Testimonial, I should have said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, God is listening, I suppose, I must say, in this particular case.

To get back to Bill 8, I have to get up and say what is on my mind with regard to Bill 8. The minister, as she introduced the bill, or brought it into Committee, indicated that she, as the government, as the legal authority, used this method to bring about $51 million of budgeting. It was in the form of special warrants.

Again, repetition has to begin here. With regard to special warrants, I am not exactly an old hand at being in here. I cannot go back in history, as some of the members on the other side so aptly went back and talked about the 1980s and the 1990s and so on and so forth. I guess I have to be more concerned with the present. As we all know, we do not have any influence of changing what has happened in the past, but we have to make sure what has happened in the past does not happen in the future, that we do learn some lessons.

With regard to these special warrants, Mr. Chair, the intention of special warrants, they are for, I would say, emergency situations. The emergency situation has to come into effect. Now, what one person may consider an emergency perhaps another would not, so I guess there is some flexibility in declaring an emergency. An emergency has to be something that is quite urgent, that needs to be done on the spot, that cannot be delayed, and the examples that some of my colleagues brought up certainly indicate that a great deal of this $51 million was not intended to address an urgent emergency.

We have already referenced the recording equipment in the courtrooms. Quite honestly, we on this side of the House know that recording in courts is a very, very important part of the whole proceedings because you have to be up with the times. You cannot expect justice to be carried out if you are not trying to keep up with every technological advance; but, with regard to the recording system that was already in the courts, it was functioning. It was functioning and if, indeed, it failed at a particular time, someone was asleep at the watch, because digital recording just did not pop out of the air. It has been something, Mr. Chair, that has been used for a number of years, so someone must have known that weeks, months, years before it was called upon to replace, that it had to be done. That sort of thing certainly was not an urgent need.

A warrants has to be immediate, has to be urgent, has to be an emergency, but in this debate what really has gotten me is to realize that I was sat here in the House of Assembly while this business was being carried out by the Cabinet, by this government. It was being carried out while I was sitting here in the House. Not only that, but my colleague from Ferryland was the gentleman who got up on this side of the House and asked the minister on that side of the House: Have there been any warrants issued in the last couple of weeks? No answer, none. Then it is only natural, I guess, for my colleague again to say: Okay, there have been none in the last little while. Is there going to be one coming, or two, or three? Again, the minister says nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: No, no. I would say to the minister asking that I be sat down, it is like everything else. I have a right to speak, I suppose, and I do not have to check with that side of the House to see if I can speak. When I want to get up and speak, I am getting up and speaking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I do not have a speech in front of me but I still do not mind getting up and speaking. I do not have anyone writing speeches for me, to get up and speak. I do not go glancing around, looking at people in the gallery, wondering if I am speaking okay. I have to get up and I have to speak what I have on my mind, what I have in my stomach, and what I have in my heart, and I do not mind doing it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I do not mind doing it, and when I ask a question over on that side, I expect an answer, like my colleague from Ferryland expected an answer. Did he get it? Did he get it? I ask you, did he get it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. HEDDERSON: I was here and I did not hear it. I did not hear it. So, when a minister or when a government member on that side does not answer a question, the next thing I have to ask myself is, what is the motive? Is there something going on that they are trying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I often hear, if you are dealing with chemicals such as salt and so on, sometimes it affects your memory and that sort of thing, so I do not know what is happening over there.

Mr. Chair, to get back to it, again one of the main questions that I would like to have answered is the motive of the minister in not answering the questions of the critic, or the Member for Ferryland.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Motive has to play a big part in here because, if everything is by the book, if everything is within the act, if indeed it is no big deal -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I, too, would like to have a few words to say on Bill 8, and just elaborate on some of the issues and things that I think are important, even reading the title of the act, 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, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Mr. Chair, when we have an issue, special warrants, we expect those warrants to be for emergencies and urgent situations where there is no other choice but to issue a warrant to take care of the financial situation of that warrant. It makes me think and believe that if we had a proper budgeting process in place dealing with some of the issues that we see in the warrants, then we probably would not need these special warrants. These warrants should be for situations that arise immediately on an emergency basis. Some of the warrants that we see are warrants that should have been in a budget and debated in the House of Assembly here by the members in this House.

Mr. Chair, when we look at the Auditor General's report, stated on Figure 7, special warrants issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act since 1997, they read as follows: In 1997, special warrants amounted to a total of $36.9 million; in 1998, $30.9 million; in 1999, $95 million; in the year 2000, $70.8 million; in 2001, $33 million; and, in 2002, $33.1 million.

Mr. Chair, I can see special warrants coming at a time, in certain areas of the Province - probably in education - if we have an emergency. The minister alluded tonight to where an emergency did arise in repairing a roof in my district. That is what special warrants are for, emergencies, urgent needs that arise immediately and have to be done and taken care of immediately.

Why are we not seeing special warrants for other things in the Province? Why are we not seeing special warrants for areas depressed in rural Newfoundland with respect to job creation? Why can't we have special warrants to take care of other conditions in the Province that are emergencies? Why are we debating special warrants today on things that could have been waited on, could have taken time, could have been in a budget process. If we do that budget process right then a lot of these issues in the special warrants would have been taken care of, and we would not be debating this tonight.

I know that education, health care, transportation, justice, are all legitimate reasons in certain times and aspects of a warrant, to have one, but when we see warrants there for furniture for Justice, for the Supreme Court, that could have waited, and other things there that could have waited, could have been implemented through a budget process, then it makes me think, are we doing it right in the budgeting process? Where are we going in the future? If we are going to close down facilities in the Province, should they not be considered under the special warrant process?

We have in District #5 school board today a situation where District #5 is going to have a $450,000 shortfall this year. They are going to have a deficit that they do not know how to make up. Over the last few years, District #5 school board has done their share in restructuring and putting millions and millions of dollars back into education; but today, because they did such a great job and because they were so responsible over the last few years in the restructuring, they find themselves now in a deficit situation and nowhere to turn, nowhere where they are going to get the $450,000 they need to deliver the education that they have been delivering for the past few years.

Maybe that constitutes a reason for a special warrant. Maybe that is what we should be looking at because now it is urgent, now it is immediate. The situation has arose to deal with that deficit in District #5 school board.

We see other cases in all the districts, in every district, I am sure. Every member here in this House, I am sure, can find cases where we can probably have reasons to issue a special warrant.

I saw another case last week where I got a call from a group home operator in Grand Falls-Windsor who has been given a notice that they probably will be closing by the end of March because of funding problems. It is a choice between Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander. Which one is going to close? We do not know at this time. We suspect that the one in Grand Falls-Windsor will close. To me, that is an emergency at a time now when there are more young offenders who need to go into the community in group homes, not to be locked up behind bars and treated, basically, the same as any other criminal, when they need the government, when they need the system, society, to deliver a program to them which keeps them in the community, but also keeps them under strict control. We need that group home in Grand Falls-Windsor as much as anybody else in this Province. We need to maintain that program.

Mr. Chairman, those are the kinds of things we need special warrants for. We don't need special warrants to deliver a service that is not needed right now. I think, over the years, in the budgeting process, before the end of March comes a lot of departments look at their budgeting and they have surplus amounts of money in their budgets. Mr. Chair, what happens before the end of March comes? They are scraveling trying to use up that money, trying to spend that money so that there will be no money left at the end of March. By doing that in the budgeting process, it leaves us in a position where we have to issue special warrants to handle special cases, some that are not emergencies and are not urgent. The ones that are urgent, I have no problems with, if they are reasonable and need to be attended to immediately. That is what special warrants are for. But if we are going to gas up skidoos in June and July and we are going to use up budgeting process surpluses before the end of March, and everybody scravels trying to get that money used up, then why can't we have a better budget process where monies are left in the budgets to carry over to take care of some of the needs in different areas of the Province, in different aspects of different departments, some noted here in the issuance of these special warrants.

Hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars are being spent needlessly before the end of March. You can find a lot of cases in a lot of departments, and I can point out many in my critic area. Before the end of March I can see, as I just said, skidoos gassed up in June and July because the budget was there to do it. When the department heads scravel and say, we have to use up this money, let's purchase our new pickups, let's purchase all this new equipment and everything, some of it won't be used for another seven or eight months; nine months before they need to be used again. I don't think that is fiscally responsible.

We have to look at another way of delivering the budget process to take care of the needs when they arise, not the time when we have to do it to save face with our budgeting. We don't know exactly where all the money is being spent in the budget. We don't know how much money is being shifted from one place to another, to take care of things that the government feels are important for them, that they feel they must do, they should do. They should have advertising campaigns, they should have promotional campaigns for different projects, spending millions of dollars, maybe at the wrong time. Maybe there is a right time to do that kind of stuff, but it seems when we are spending millions of dollars because of the budget process, millions of dollars at a time when we should be taking that money and using it for urgent and emergency situations, fixing the roofs on schools, putting money into home improvement programs, another area where we could have a special warrant today, if it is not budgeted before the end of March - I think most of the regional offices are saying that their budgets are used up this year. They cannot do any more emergency repairs.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a lot to say. I will get a chance again to say a few more things later.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to speak for a few minutes on this important bill, Bill 8, 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, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Mr. Chairman, we have certainly heard tonight a very important discussion in terms of really what is meant when we talk about the type of legislation that is before us as brought forward in Bill 8. We have learned a lot as well as to the types of procedures that are used by the government of today in terms of dealing with matters that are supposedly of an urgent nature, and supposedly have to be dealt with in a fashion that appears to have some difficulty with the Auditor General of our Province; because, as has been mentioned by members on this side of the House, the whole concept of special warrants is one that, of course, is being questioned very seriously by our Auditor General. In his most recent report, again there is no exception to what appears to be just a pattern of really the word abuse, I guess, by government in terms of issuing special warrants, only to be found and ultimately to be found to be in contravention of the Financial Administration Act of the Province.

It is interesting to note, and I know it has been repeated by a number of members on this side of the House, that this is certainly nothing new. It began, or certainly continued, in 1997 in an amount of close to $37 million up to a high in the year 2000 of $70.8 million, and again, most recently, of $33.1 million. Of course, in this particular bill, according to the schedule, Mr. Chairman, we see a total of $51 million. We have heard the rationale by members on this side of the House, and I guess an attempt of a rationale and an explanation by members opposite as to what is deemed to be of an urgent and critical nature, thereby, in some fashion, justifying the use of special warrants in this way.

I guess the real question, Mr. Chairman, that has to be asked, and the issue perhaps that has to be addressed is: What is the purpose of a Financial Administration Act when the Auditor General of our Province, on a repeated basis, can say year after year that government's practice and government's way of doing things is a contravention of the act?

Certainly there has to be some solution and some answers afforded to the people of this Province. We cannot continue, Mr. Chairman, with our Auditor Generals saying year after year that government's practice contravenes provincial legislation. There has to be more to it than that. There has to be a remedy. There has to be a solution, Mr. Chairman, to what is this repeated violation of our provincial legislation.

I certainly would be interested in hearing, perhaps for a few minutes even this evening as we continue in this debate, from perhaps our chief law maker and our chief prosecutor in the Province, namely the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Province, because the question has to be asked, not only of government generally but perhaps maybe of the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice in particular. How can he repeatedly hear that a particular piece of legislation is being contravened year after year without any repercussion, Mr. Chairman, without any consequences being afforded to government either by ministers or by government generally? In other words, Mr. Chairman, there has to be some form of governmental or ministerial accountability. Just for an Auditor General to maintain the position year after year that there has been a violation of the Financial Administration Act, or contravention of the Financial Administration Act, is simply not enough. Again, it seems to me that it would be incumbent upon the Minister of Justice to at least, in the absence of any explanation, perhaps to show an interest and perhaps an attempt to see how this situation can resolve itself.

One method I would propose, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the strengthening of the legislation so that if in future years we see the same sort of language being used by the Auditor General, for example, contravention of legislation, we need a strengthening of the legislation to ensure that there is some governmental or ministerial accountability. Again, that would be an indication at least that government is perhaps taking seriously what is being debated here this evening and again, by strengthening the legislation, we would have a way around this simple repetition by an Auditor General that this contravention is occurring.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard members on this side of the House, and again an attempt of an explanation by members opposite giving examples as to how this was needed. Well, I think the Member for Kilbride gave perhaps one of the principal examples of how matters urgent and matters critical are not necessarily relevant in this particular case when we are talking about different types of furniture used in our court houses in this Province, or a technical system that has to be put in place. Granted, it may be ultimately important and ultimately in the best interests of the people of our Province. The question is timing, and the issue is timing, and the issue then becomes one of urgency and necessity in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, again we need some clarification on this issue. We need some strengthening of the legislation to ensure that if contravention continues, and if this type of violation of the legislation continues on a repeated basis, that the issue of accountability has to be addressed, and any government - not only this government but indeed any government, regardless of political party, regardless of date or timing - any government has to show and prove to the people of our Province that it is accountable and some method of accountability, whether that be ministerial or governmental in general, would have to be forthcoming.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that the legislation does provide examples of certain violations, but these are relatively restricted and limited to individuals who perhaps wilfully and fraudulently violate a method of collection, for example, or distribution of funds. That is not really what we are talking about here. It is certainly in the public interest, it is certainly well in the interest of the people of our Province, to always feel secure that the legislation that governs the financial affairs of this Province, the legislation that governs the financial well-being of this Province, is being safeguarded, is being upheld, Mr. Chairman, and is being protected by provisions that hopefully can eventually be put in place to ensure that this type of obstruction does not continue on a year-to-year basis.

Again, I think it is incumbent on our Auditor General and our Minister of Justice to look seriously upon a methodology that may be used to reinforce the legislation to ensure that this blatant attempt to simply violate on a repeated basis and contravene on a repeated basis such important legislation as the Financial Administration Act of our Province, to ensure that this does not reoccur, and it is incumbent on government to seriously look at its own laws, to seriously look at its own legislation and bring forward an amendment, I would say, Mr. Chairman, so that, as members of this Chamber, we can debate the merits of such an amendment that would indeed protect the public interest and guarantee this sort of repetition from occurring on a year-to-year basis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am certainly glad to rise to make a few comments on Bill 8. I will not take too long, as we have been on many bills here today and made some interesting comments, but this particular debate on this particular bill has raised the level of debate to - some people do not believe it should be raised to this level in this House.

Mr. Chairman, this particular bill is interesting in the fact that since the cameras have gone off at 10:00 p.m., there have only been speakers on this side of the House. I do not know if anybody else has noticed that. For some strange reason the intervening speakers and the back and forth has finally, Mr. Chairman, left with the cameras. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to stand and make our points and use the short time we have in Committee, some short ten minutes. I will continue to stand and make just a few points.

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the debate back and forth before the cameras went off, the comments from the various ministers from the government. Of course, the Government House Leader has raised, on a number of occasions, the context of words. It is funny how people have different meanings with words. The Government House Leader, when he stood a little while ago on his point of order, referred to context of words and how different words could mean different things in different situations, and he is absolutely right. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Chairman, at different times the context of words can mean different things. For example, you could say: I can't believe I won the lottery. Although you know you won the lottery, you can't believe you won it.

He talked about the words that the Member for Bonavista South used: I can't believe it. Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the context of the words is, and nobody has really answered as they stood tonight, different ministers.

In the Auditor General's report when it says, "Since 1997 my Office has expressed concern" - the Auditor General's Office has expressed concern - "that many special warrants issued each did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act." Again, Mr. Chairman, in the shorter version here - and all members have this - the Auditor General again: Our review of the four special warrants which were issued on the 28 and 30 March 2001 indicated that they were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act and that they were not urgently required. I will get to urgently required in a second, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is, two slightly different statements, in context still mean the same thing. The Auditor General, the person with the forthright vision and responsibility for the accounts of the House of Assembly and, I guess, ultimately the responsibility for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, has said in two different statements, in context meaning the same thing - in one he said, did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act, and in the other said, were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. It means the same thing, Mr. Chairman, whichever way you look at it.

The Government House Leader wants to talk about context. They are talking about how they were misleading or some of the words that we are not supposed to use or supposed to use and so on. I guess we all have the ability to spin and take into context or turn or twist, anyway you want to talk about certain words, but it all comes down to the same thing and the same points that each member on this side of the House have made since the critic, the Member for Ferryland, stood tonight and asked some very pertinent questions, direct questions, to the minister. As a matter of fact, he is still asking questions to the minister that she still will have to answer sooner or later, whether it be in Committee stage of this bill or in Question Period. I can guarantee you that the Member for Ferryland will get an answer. I don't know if he will get an answer, but he will continue to question other minister to try to get as direct an answer as possible on this particular issue of the state of the finances of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, someone also mentioned earlier today - and I remember it well, especially in the former Premier's day - the days of the budget announcements in this House when, of course, we had all of our guests here, we had all the cameras and the lights in the House of Assembly, all the pomp and pageantry that goes with it, it seemed like there were more and more lights, more cameras, more pageantry everytime there was a budget, especially in the former Premier's day. Now it continues with this current Premier, but we always gave that perfect picture.

I remember being on a couple of panels with different television stations outside this lobby doing panels on discussing the state of the budget, or what our comments were on that particular budget. After people would see all the glitter, pomp and pageantry - the people of the Province were so used to it that they would say: What is this budget really all about? It would take days and weeks, as a matter of fact, maybe as long as months to really see the true picture of the financial state of this Province. Year after year we have seen that. There is nothing new in this administration. They would use the glitter and they would use smoke screens, whichever way you want to look at it, they would use all of that but at the end of the day, sooner or later, through our help as the Opposition, but also through other interest groups throughout the Province, qualified people would finally come with the end result, which we have done on many, many occasions, which is the true picture of the finances of this Province. Year after year we have seen it, and the same thing again this year.

Some members have stood up in this particular debate, Madam Chair, to talk about what a good job that has been done. In all fairness, tonight there were times when people were holding back from laughing when that statement was made. To say, in fact, what a wonderful job we have done and then to turn around to look at deficits of the last number of years, the growth of those deficits and what the real deficit will be for this particular year. The current account deficit for this particular year, the real story is still to come on that. I am just wondering, as people speculate on elections and so on, when we will really see the next budget; if the next budget will be brought down so the people of this Province finally get a long-term picture of what the current financial state of this Province is and where we go from there.

When you have an Auditor General who said - not just this year. The statement did not say just this year. The statement said since 1997. They have given a number of years. They have only listed so many years here. In 1997, $36.9 million; in 1998, $30.9 million; in 1999, $95 million; in 2000, $70.8 million; 2001, $33 million; in 2002, $33 million; and, of course, today's bill with $51 million -

MR. SULLIVAN: Since1994, over $600 million.

MR. SHELLEY: Since 1994, over $600 million in special warrants. That is what our critic tells us, and I believe him because he follows this very closely. His calculations are not very far off. Very few times - in my nine years here, Madam Chair, I can honestly say, besides his portfolio as finance, but in other portfolios, his numbers have not been off very much. As a matter of fact, there are many members in this House who can contest to the same thing.

I remember on occasions of the former, former, former premier, Premier Clyde Wells, as he made comments on the budget and how the Member for Ferryland corrected him to a point one of the billion dollar deficit, and so on. So, Madam Chair, it is not something new. It is not something that we have never seen before. The fact is that this government, over a decade - thirteen years now that it has been in power, since 1989 - have, as the years went by, grown and used more pomp and pageantry as they announced their budget to give a rosy picture of the real circumstances that this Province face.

The other part that I wanted to mention, Madam Chair, just to finish the statement, besides the Administration Act, in our opinion, they were not urgently required. The Auditor General in this occasion has mentioned it twice, that they certainly have to look at urgency whenever they talk about special warrants. For some members to get up tonight, during this debate, and talk about what urgency really means - I think the Minister for Youth Services explained about the recording equipment needed in courts and so on, and how important it is so that they do not have to go out and spend money on old equipment when they should be getting new ones. All I could think about was the Member for Cape St. Francis today when he raised the questions about the Ahelaid or the now so-called Hull 100. The name has been changed so that people might forget the stigma attached to such a monstrosity - I guess is the best way to answer it - from something that was bought for less than $1 million. There was supposed to be $2 million to $3 million spent on it and now it has almost tripled that amount. Now that is where we could see something being called urgent. Where something was put into better use and the finances of this Province was looked at and scrutinized more closely. So, in fact, there is a lot of waste.

As people in this Province look around and look at this Administration, and brag about the rosy picture each year that we look at as the budget comes down in this Province, and then it takes them days and weeks and months to finally clear away the smoke on the mirrors, to get off the rose colored glasses and to finally look at the real picture that this Province runs into year after year. So, indeed, when we look at special warrants, I guess it is a matter of trust. Most people who were listening to the debate, if they were listening to -

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Just a few minutes, by leave, to clue up. Ten minutes?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave granted.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to continue on with a few words on Bill 8, with respect to the special warrants and the money that this Administration is spending and the situation that we find ourselves in in this Province today.

As I said earlier, Madam Chair, this Administration has a history of abusing the special warrants. I brought that up a few years ago when I was the critic for finance. I made a point of it, at that point in time, of how this Administration was abusing the special warrants.

The system is that the government can expend money through three processes, I suppose, or three methods. One, of course, is the Budget itself. The Budget every year is usually brought down some time in March month and we always find that in the last few days of March that the government, this Administration, tries to sit us through the night to get the Budget approved. Oftentimes, Madam Chair, what they will do then is say: Listen, if you don't approve the Budget we can't pay the salaries of the civil servants and the government can't operate, cannot run. They usually get their -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bay of Islands is commenting across the House. I find it more than passing strange that over the past few hours members on this side of the House have been up once, twice and maybe three times. A couple on that side of the House have been up two or three times, the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Minister of Finance. The Member for Bay of Islands has yet to stand in his place and speak to this bill, a very important bill. They are looking for money now to - I will get the bill now and have a look at it - $51 million to be approved through the special warrants process, and that member has yet to stand in his place and say anything at all about this $51 million.

As I said, we have the Budget process where it is approved in this House of Assembly in the billions of dollars. I think the Budget is almost $4 billion now through the budget process. Then we have Supplementary Supply, where if there is any money required over and above the Budget that was approved, bring it to the House of Assembly in the form of a bill, debate it and have it approved - a natural progression - or the special warrant process; we have special warrants. Again, government can expend money, spend the taxpayers' dollars if they so decide, for any purpose, I suppose, but it has to be of an urgent, urgent nature, Madam Chair. We often see this Administration spending money through special warrants. We hear the Auditor General consistently say, over the past number of years, that they contravene the special warrants or the Financial Administration Act. Madam Chair, I have a problem with that.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Mines and Energy can stand in their places and try to rationalize special warrants and the abuse of special warrants all they want. There is no one on this side of the House who would in any way hinder the expenditures of dollars in an emergency or urgent process. For example, in the District of Bay of Islands if we had a flood or a flash flood, or whatever the case may be, and there was a road washed away, say the Trans-Canada Highway or any special road, then, Madam Chair, for safety reasons we may need to spend $1 million or $500,000, whatever the case may be. There is no one on this side of the House who would oppose that because, again, it is an emergency situation. We see this administration, oftentimes, Madam Chair, spend money when the House of Assembly is open and there is no need to use special warrants. That is what we mean, Madam Chair, when we say they are abusing special warrants when the House of Assembly is open.

In March of last year, $48 million, I believe, went through special warrants, that could have easily been brought through this House of Assembly; but, no. Why were they trying to hide it? Again, as I stated before, Madam Chair, they are trying to manipulate the bottom line of the Budget. Again, the government can spend $50 million, $100 million, $150 million or whatever the case may be. If they want to create a deficit, they an easily create a deficit. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, there could be a surplus. We have seen in the past where there could have been a surplus if they hadn't abused the special warrant process and spent money in the last few days of March before the Budget expired, just to make a deficit. So, that is not agreeable.

Now, we saw the Minister of Finance, when she was on her feet introducing this bill, trying to rationalize it for herself - I believe she actually believes what she is saying - and for the public too, to try and make it look reasonable. She talked about 1983-1984, that there were thirty-two special warrants. In 1984-1985 there were forty-one special warrants. In 1986-1987 there were thirty-six special warrants. In 1988-1989 there were forty-four. Last year, she said, there were only nine special warrants. Madam Chair, take 1988-1989, forty-four special warrants, those could have been $1,000 each. It could have been $44,000. It could have been $1 million each; $44 million. Now we have nine special warrants totaling $51 million. So, again it is this play on words, trying to manipulate, trying to deflect the real issues, Madam Chair, telling the public out there that we have come down from forty-four special warrants to nine.

Now, the forty-four special warrants in 1989 might have been legit, they might have been really needed. There may have been forty-four urgent situations or emergencies, Madam Chair. Of the nine, how many of those were urgent? Forty-eight million was issued, from my understanding, in the month of March.

Now, think about this, Madam Chair. I will give you an example. I remember when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General had her report in, again contradicting or saying that the government contravened the Financial Administration Act. She said, you had to have an urgent situation. Now, what the government did in March was, they approved, through a special warrant, x amount of dollars - I believe it was in the millions - for the Department of Education, Madam Chair. What did they do? That money wasn't spent until September. Now, we have March, April, May, June, July and August. Six months later they spent the money. How could they argue that was an urgent situation? It is impossible to argue. Yet, we will see the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Mines and Energy, the attack dog for the government on that side of the House, the Minister of Mines and Energy, Madam Chair, get up in their place and try to justify, to rationalize, the abuse of the special warrants.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are repeating yourself.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what I said, and I will say it again. Every time anything is on the go on this side of the House, who on that side of the House do they get up to try to be the attack dog for the government?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy. He goes on and on and on trying to be rational, trying to be cute, trying to be smart, Madam Chair, but no, it is not the case. He just rationalizes in his own mind the arguments that he is trying to make for whatever minister on that side of the House.

Basically, as I said in the past and I said earlier on, this Administration has, in my mind, from my own perspective, really no respect for the special warrant process. It is a legitimate process. It is put in place for government to use to benefit society, to help the public in emergency situations, in urgent situations. We see so often that this Administration, this government, Madam Chair, since 1989, have abused that.

As a matter of fact, let's talk about the deficit. In 1989, when this Administration came into power, the total debt of the Province was $4.8 billion. That is since 1949 - $4.8 billion, from 1949 to 1989 - forty years, Madam Chair. What is it today, in twelve years? It is $7.6 billion. That is the total debt for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In a matter of twelve years it has increased by 50 per cent or more. I do not know when the government, the existing government on that side of the House today -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: It cannot be already, Madam Chair. I just got started.

By leave?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I will continue as soon as I get the opportunity again.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I take the opportunity tonight to stand and make a few comments on Bill 8, 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, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Madam Chair, as I sat here and listened tonight, of course, much of the debate has been around - from the government side of the House - trying to legitimize the actions that they have taken over the past number of years in approving and using special warrants in meeting their financial obligations to the Province. Of course, much of the spin from the government side of the House has been that we would suggest that these monies should not have been spent, or that we would not approve spending monies to help seniors with covering drug costs, or for the purchase of medical equipment for hospitals, or for recording equipment for courthouses, or other spending of the like. Of course, that is not what is being said on this side of the House and that is not what this debate is about. The debate is about how government is using special warrants, and whether they should be used, and the time they are used, and whether it is in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, and whether it is in contravention of the Financial Administration Act, and whether the Auditor General's report is appropriate and factual and what have you.

Madam Chair, when I listen to what the special warrants were used for - I thought that special warrants, in my limited experience in the House of Assembly, which I admit is very limited and is certainly nothing close to the experience that some members here have. Certainly some members on the government side and some members on this side have had substantial experience in this House and know much more than I about special warrants and the Financial Administration Act and how it should be used and applied.

Madam Chair, there is one point that consistently comes up on special warrants, in that they must be urgent, of a necessary and urgent nature. If you read - and this has been referenced a number of times tonight but I think it bears repeating - some lines from the Auditor General's report for the year ending 31 March 2001, the Auditor General said, "Our review of the four special warrants totalling $33 million which were issued on 28 and 30 March 2001 indicated that they were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act in that they were not urgently required."

I do not know how much clearer it can be. You can say contravene. You can say that it is breaking the law. You can say it in any number of ways, but the fact remains that the Financial Administration Act has been contravened. It is here in black and white. It says, "Since the funds were not urgently required and the House of Assembly was in session, the request for the additional funding should have been included in either a Supplementary Supply Act for 2000-01 and presented to the House of Assembly for approval in that year or included in the 2001-02 budget."

Now, those are the words of the Auditor General. They are not the words of anybody on this side of the House or anybody on the government side of the House. It is there in black and white in the Auditor General's Report. It is clear to anybody who wants to read it, whether they are in this House or not, that the Financial Administration Act was contravened and that government did not have to do it the way they did. So it really begs the question: Why did government choose to take this approach?

If you read on, in the last paragraph in this section it says, "Government generally waits until March of each year, determines its cash surplus at that point in time and provides additional funding to the extent necessary to provide a predetermined financial result in the Consolidated Revenue Fund."

As our finance critic has pointed out, this is what the government does on a consistent basis over time. Consistently, year in and year out, it uses special warrants to satisfy its own end. It does not take the budget process and use it like it should be used. The government does not take the Budget and budget appropriately for spending. It waits until after the fact and issues special warrants so that the people of the Province get a false picture of what the true financial picture of the Province is. You know it is completely erroneous, I guess, is probably the best way of putting it. I will say erroneous because I am not sure if what I was going to say is parliamentary or not, so I will leave it at that and carry on.

If you look at the 2001-02 report of the Auditor General, and again under special warrants, you will read here, "Special warrants are used to make payments not approved in the original budget, thereby increasing Government expenditures and either increasing its deficit or decreasing its surplus. Since 1997 my office has expressed concern that many special warrants issued each year did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act as, in our opinion, they were not urgently required."

So, why did they do it? Why is it being done? I am sure that there is nobody on this side of the House, if there was something urgent, if there was an urgent need for funds and government had to issue a special warrant then nobody here would be complaining about that. If there was spending that was needed and it needed to be debated in the budget, then there is nobody on this side of the House who would question that. Yes, while we might question it so that we could find out if the concern was valid and the spending was appropriate, but we would allow it to continue on. Madam Chair, this is not the case.

When we see a special warrant being issued so that new updated recording equipment can be purchased for the Supreme Court, the court system throughout the Province, that is not a need for a special warrant. That is not an urgent need for cash. If there was a huge hurricane that past through here in October or November and the House of Assembly was not sitting and there were roads washed out somewhere in this Province and the government needed a special warrant for $2 million or $3 million or whatever the figure would be, to be able to do this work, to be able to deal with an urgent situation, then that is the time to use a special warrant.

If in August month, or July month or late June, there was a forest fire somewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador and the government needed to access $2 million in order to pay its water bomber crews to keep the planes in the air to fight forest fires, to keep men and women on the ground to combat the forest fires to protect our forest industry, would we be opposed to that? Would we question the need for a special warrant then? No, we would not. That is where a special warrant should be used. What we find here - it is obvious - where a government does not want to budget these funds, wants to hide it from the public, tries to hide it from the public so that people get a false picture of what the financial state of the Province is. That is what is going on here. It is obvious to us, it is obvious to the Auditor General, and I believe it is obvious to everybody in the Province. The only people that it is not obvious to - I do not know if it is not obvious to, or they do not want to admit it, they cannot admit it - is the government. That is where the problem lies, Madam Chair.

When government members stand up, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, or the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Mines and Energy and say that we are opposed to these types of spending. Yes, we are opposed to this type of spending when they are taking special warrants and using them for something that they are not designed for. When it is in contravention of the Financial Administration Act, of course we are opposed to it. Does that mean we are opposed to the spending per se? No, it does not mean that.

When it comes to providing monies for seniors for drug costs there is nobody on this side of the House who is opposed to that, but there is a process in place, a budgetary process. There is a House of Assembly that was sitting at the time. When some of these special warrants were signed by the minister last year this House of Assembly was sitting here. We were all here and all that had to be done, it could have been brought to the House, we could have debated it, we could have passed it if it were deemed necessary. That is what could have been done. That is what should have been done and that is what the Financial Administration Act allows for; not the blatant disregard for a process that we see by the government now, that we have seen, as the Auditor General points out.

It is quite an extensive list on page 29 of the Auditor General's summary here. Page 29 says: Special Warrants in Contravention of the Financial Administration Act for 1997 to 2002. It does not say special warrants that were issued inline with the Financial Administration Act. It does not say special warrants that were issued because there was an urgent need for $36.9 million in 1997. It does not say that. It says, "Special Warrants in Contravention of the Financial Administration Act."

I always thought if you contravene something - if I contravene the Highway Traffic Act then normally somebody with a red and blue light display is going to pull me over and give me a ticket. That is what usually happens. If I am flying down the highway at 120 kilometres an hour in a 70 kilometre zone then nine chances out of ten, if an RCMP officer is going along, he is going to haul me over and say: You have contravened the Highway Traffic Act. He is going to write out a ticket and add it to the pile that I have. That is what he or she is going to do. That is not what is happening here, but it is exactly the same thing. What the government is doing is exactly the same thing. The government here, since 1997 to 2002, has contravened the Financial Administration Act more often than I have gotten speeding tickets, and that is a substantial amount, I can tell you that.

In 1997 the government contravened the Financial Administration Act to the tune of $36.9 million. In 1998 they contravened the Financial Administration Act to the tune of $30.9 million. In 1999 they contravened the Financial Administration Act to the tune of $95 million.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave to clue up, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he can go on all night if he wants to.

MADAM CHAIR: Granted.

MR. TAYLOR: I will take a half hour to clue up.

In 2000, the government contravened the Financial Administration Act by issuing special warrants to the tune of $70.8 million, and in 2001 the government contravened the Financial Administration Act to the tune of $33 million. In 2002, they contravened the Financial Administration Act, once again by the use of special warrants, to the tune of $33.1 million.

The vast majority of this, Madam Chair, was done while this House was sitting and, according to the Auditor General, was done when there wasn't an urgent need for there funds at that time and it could have been dealt with in another way.

So, Madam Chair, we don't think that we should be keeping money away from seniors in order to pay for their drug costs. We don't think that we should necessarily not buy new equipment for the court system; no. That is not the situation. The situation is, there is a process here, there is a budgetary process, that is in place for this Province, there is a House of Assembly, there is a Legislature, we are elected to debate the finances of this Province and how the money belonging to the people of this Province is spent, and the government is avoiding that, is contravening the Financial Administration Act. It is clear to the Auditor General and it is clear to us.

Madam Chair, on that I will conclude my few remarks. I am sure there are others here who would like to make a few more remarks.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I want to make a few comments on the fiscal state of our Province.

MR. BARRETT: That is better. That is better. (Inaudible) is good, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't want to deafen the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at all.

MR. BARRETT: The t.v. is not on now.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister should know that anything I have said in this House, it hasn't bothered me whether the t.v. is on or not. He should know that well. If I am going to say something, I am going to say it. I hope I won't say anything out of the way I wouldn't say if it is on or not on.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: How many times are you going to say it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sometimes that listening audience are not bright enough to catch it the first ten times and you have to keep repeating it and repeating it until they learn.

MR. JOYCE: Was it chicken or Chinese food (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it was. The answer to that question is yes, unequivocally yes.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: The answer is still yes, I say to the member for Bay of Islands. It is still yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is your chow mein these days?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a lot better, I would say, than your deficit. That is what I would say. It is a lot better.

How can you project a deficit of $30.5 million and end up with one of $473.1 million. The Auditor General raises some very serious concerns. In fact, in the report tabled here in the House by the Auditor General, it went on to mention, "Government started preparing the Consolidated Summary Financial Statements in 1994 and at that time, the net debt was $6.5 billion." There has been a $2.4 billion increase in debt since 1994. That has caused, of course - most people know the debt is an accumulation of annual deficits.

The Auditor General goes on to say, "For every year since 1994, the first year these financial statements were prepared, with the exception of 1998, Government has had an annual deficit. The surplus of $133 million (as restated) in 1998 resulted from a one time payment of $348 million...." That is on the Labrador ferry service transfer. If that had not been received, there would have been a deficit of $215 million.

The Auditor General said, "Borrowings (net of sinking funds) and the unfunded pension liability in 1994 totalled $7.9 billion; in 2002, the amount had increased by 25% to $9.9 billion.", since that period of time. The Auditor General indicated, "I believe that spending within its means and addressing the debt and unfunded pension liability should be a priority of Government."

There are numerous other remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you repeat that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Someone wanted it repeated. That is one of those people I referred to as being a little slow in understanding. I tell you, before the sun comes up tomorrow morning, I will repeat it again.

The Auditor General says, "The inconsistent reporting has resulted in much confusion and debate in the past as to what was Government's "real" deficit or surplus in a particular year." I might add, we were here in this House before and the Government House Leader stood up one day - and I will not mention the member in particular - and said: The member who just spoke is the perfect cure for insomnia. That was the current Lieutenant-Governor of the Province. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation just put herself asleep with her own hypnosis.

That reminds me of a colleague of mine who said, under current affairs - it used to come on in the nighttime and you had five minutes to speak your piece, about 12 o'clock in the night - a colleague of mine said: I stayed up to watch myself on TV on a Sunday night and I fell asleep before it came on. I said: Don't feel too bad. I stayed up to watch you and I fell asleep after you came on. That probably typifies the situation there.

I can tell you one thing, the Auditor General is not asleep when makes reference to the accounts of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is very much awake, I might add. He is very much awake. Many people on that side have missed their wake-up call. The alarm clock has not gone off yet on a lot of these people who are presiding over the finances of our Province.

Here is an interesting statement. The Auditor General said, "Even if a reader attempted to understand what transactions caused the increase in the deficit..." - from $47.2 million to $473.1 million, as a result of not preparing a summary budget - "...it would not be possible to determine how close government came to meeting its fiscal plan."

Can you imagine making a statement, because they are not preparing a statement that takes into consideration all aspects of government's operation, you cannot tell whether the government are on target or not. What does that say about accountability? An open, transparent and accountable government, they do not even know themselves how far they are in debt until the Auditor General and the public accounts tell them so.

Madam Chairperson, in the reference by the Auditor General on page 16, it says, "The accumulated deficit (or net debt)...." I made reference to this. Actually, in Question Period I asked the minister the question: If we are having such unprecedented growth in the economy, why is our debt to the GDP ratio going up instead of down? If growth is increasing rapidly, far ahead of the rest of the country, why is the net debt passing us by? Because our debt is increasing at a pace that is considerably faster than our economy is growing. Anybody who follows it knows that your ratio of your debt to your GDP is the ability of a government to be able to finance and meet its debt obligations. There is nothing wrong with borrowing if the borrowing rates and if your debt are not increasing faster than GDP, it has not put any increased burden on our ability to operate and to fund various programs and services, but in this particular case it is not happening. It is going ahead. We are going in reverse, I might add. The economy is going forward and we are going backwards faster than it is going ahead. That puts us in a net position of an increased deficit.

In 1989 people talked about net debt. The total public sector debt in 1989 was $4.8 billion. A year ago, after twelve years, our total public sector debt is up over $7 billion. That is when you take in Crown corporations and you add in the sinking funds that are used to meet debt obligations. We have increased our debt by almost 50 per cent since 1989. So, there has been a tremendous downward spiral in spite of being told that over the past few years we have seen unprecedented economic growth.

We have a reason to be concerned. One of the points made earlier today is that the burden we are placing - not only a burden on ourselves, but the people who are going to pay the biggest price for the burden we are putting on is our children and our grandchildren. The burden is becoming almost unbearable and it is putting us into a very tenuous financial position.

The Auditor General talks about sinking funds, and here is what this government has done. He said, "As the figure indicates, Government has decided in each of the last three years not to take all of the budgeted sinking fund monies into income...". Because, what does that do?

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair, by leave, just to finish up my train of thought?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

MR. REID: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: He cannot deny leave when he is not in his seat. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture cannot deny leave. He has to be in his seat to deny leave in the House.

MS KELLY: Now I am denying leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Denying leave? Okay.

Could we show, for the record, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education is denying leave to finish up for about a minute. I will have to get back up again, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the last number of hours now we have been discussing these special warrants and the Member for Ferryland District has put forward the case very eloquently that this government has not been governing in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.

Madam Chair, we do not need to make these statements again, but obviously the other side of this House do not see the importance of this. The Minister of Finance got up in her place and she said: there is nothing wrong. She has not admitted that they have done anything which contravenes the act. Yet, the Auditor General in the last two reports, and in the report the other day, clearly says that the practices of this government are not in accordance with the constraints and the policies contained in the Financial Administration Act.

Now, who is right? Who do we believe? Do we believe the government spokespeople on that side? Do we believe their spin doctors over there, or do we believe the Auditor General? It comes down to, who do you believe? Do you believe the Auditor General is right when she said in the last two reports, the year -

MR. BARRETT: She is a he, boy (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, the year for March 31, 2000, that would be a lady, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

Do we believe the Auditor General's report for the end of the year 2000-2001? Do we believe the gentleman who wrote the report we received a few days ago? Are these believable people, or are these people all wrong? When you look at the academic qualifications of the Auditor General, the years of experience that he or she brings to that particular task, and year after year after year they have said that the government has not lived in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.

The Minister of Finance gets up and says: That's not a problem. We needed that money to spend on health, or we needed that money to spend on drug plans for the seniors, or whatever. That totally clouds the whole issue. That is not the issue. The issue is that there are laws in this Province. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General has the responsibility to make sure that we live in accordance with the laws of the Province. The Minister of Finance is supposed to make sure that what she does is done in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. That is the mandate given to the minister. That is the mandate given to the government. Yet, the Auditor General clearly says that section 28 of the Financial Administration Act has not been lived up to, has not been adhered to, has not been the accepted practice of this government.

My colleague mentioned here tonight section 28.(2) where it says: the necessity to spend the money has to be urgent. Yet, the Auditor General in the last umteen reports going back to 1993 and, in particular, since 1997, has said that this government's practices are not in accordance with the law. Yet, this bill would have us sanction them, have us approve them, and this is what we are asked to approve. We are asked to approve, after the fact, the fact that this government has not lived up to its obligations under law.

Madam Chair, it is very simple. Do we tonight stay here all night and debate this, and eventually get it passed? Maybe. Or, do we stand here and say we will not approve this particular piece of legislation because it is condones the practice that the Auditor General finds offensive. The Auditor General says that it contravenes the laws of our Province, and we are asked here now to approve, after the fact, the fact that this government has seen fit to ignore the laws of our Province.

My colleague, the Member for Ferryland, just a few moments ago, was talking about the annual deficit numbers and how we asked questions here last year about the real deficit numbers. We were told by the Minister of Finance, we have a deficit of $30 million. The reality is, the annual deficit figures show an increase over the last four years of about $100 million a year. That is completely different from what the Minister of Finance has been telling this House in her Budgets.

For example, in the year 1999 we had a net deficit of $187 million; in the year 2000, it was $270 million; in the year 2001, it was $350 million; in 2002, it was $473 million. Compare that with the Budget Speeches and you can see a tremendous difference in those figures. So, the rosy picture that is painted in the Budget Speeches is completely different than what the Auditor General says when he or she makes their annual statement.

If we look at it very carefully, we will note what it says over here on page 29 of the recent statement, the one put out for the year ending 31 March 2002, tabled just a few days ago, and I repeat, "Since 1997 my Office has expressed concern that many special warrants issued each year did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act as, in our opinion, they were not urgently required."

Here is the phrase that gets us into reporting the correct numbers as they should be reported; reported correctly by my colleague, the critic, but not reported correctly by the Minister of Finance. It reads, "The use of special warrants provides Government with the flexibility to "adjust" its cash surplus or deficit and produce a result it desires."

When we spoke earlier tonight, we spoke about the fact that many of the expenditures that the Auditor General talks about had occurred in March. It would seem to be logical that there should not be any more requirements to have special funds spent in March than there would be in any other month of the year. However, the thing about March is that it lets the government adjust its figures. For example, if we were to read the Auditor General's report again, on page 30 it talks about what would happen if we never adjusted the thing by way of other expenditures. I will read again the full quote, the full paragraph. It is called the Impact of Adjustments on page 30. The Auditor General writes, "In order to assess the impact that the adjustments discussed in Part 5.2 would have on the cash surplus or deficit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, I have summarized, in Figure 8, the cash surplus both before and after the adjustments for dividends and guarantee fees from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, sinking fund monies, recoveries on loans, advances and investments, and special warrants." What he does then is say that, because we have used data which has been used selectively by the government, it produces a different picture.

For example, "For the 2001-02 fiscal year, if Government had received the Hydro dividends, Hydro guarantee fees, sinking fund monies, and recoveries on loans, advances and investments it had budgeted, and had not issued special warrants in contravention of the Financial Administration Act, it would have reported a cash surplus of $33.5 million in Consolidated Revenue Fund rather than a cash deficit of $47.2 million."

Madam Chair, what the Auditor General is saying is that the government has used special warrants and has used the revenues from Hydro, the dividends from Hydro, the Hydro guarantee fees, the sinking fund monies, used all of these things to produce a financial picture that in reality is different from the real facts and figures that should pertain to the finances of our Province. That is why this government could say that they have a deficit of $30 million and yet, when the real figures come out, it is $473 million.

Of course, the Auditor General makes a point of saying that in the last number of years we have had a 37 per cent increase in net debt, since 1994, caused by annual deficits; a 37 per cent increase in our net debt.

So, Madam Chair, what we are saying is that we have had -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Already, Madam Chair? It seems like I have just gotten started.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We shall come back again.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I move that the Committee, on its rising, report progress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: Order 13, Madam Chair, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, Bill 25.

A Bill, "An Act To Amend The Access to Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. (Bill 25)

On motion, clauses 1 through 9 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 10, Madam Chair, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No 3, Bill 29.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No 3.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, we propose an amendment to section 1, noted as subsection (8). In that particular section, in the second line from the bottom, starting with the word "notice", we delete everything thereafter to the end of that sentence and replace it with the following: regulations shall be available to any resident of the community upon request, without charge.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 1, as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill, with amendment, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 8, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act, Bill 26.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I move 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 Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report Bill 25 and Bill 26 carried without amendment, Bill 29 with amendment, to report progress on Bill 8, and to ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Bill 29 was carried, with amendment. When shall the amendment be read a first time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now?

On motion, amendment read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn.

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