The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today, the Deputy Mayor of Mount Pearl, Mr. Steve Kent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the important issue of air quality and to inform hon. members of progress that has been made in dealing with a number of environmental matters at the Come By Chance oil refinery, particularly matters relating to air quality.

Approximately 130 countries, including Canada, will be meeting in Kyoto, Japan, from December 1 to December 12, 1997 for the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Mr. Speaker, this is a major international conference dealing with the global problem of climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. In preparation for this international conference, a joint national meeting of energy and environment ministers was held last week in Regina, Saskatchewan. I am pleased that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador co-chaired this meeting with the Province of Alberta. The meeting was useful in providing the federal government with advice on a national position with respect to climate change issues.

The simple fact that so many nations are meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to deal with this single issue clearly demonstrates the importance of air issues on the international agenda. Mr. Speaker, air issues are important in Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not a major contributor to the climate change problem. However, Mr. Speaker, government recognizes its responsibilities in this area and we have given assurances that we will work towards meeting the national commitment to reduce greenhouse gasses. As well, Mr. Speaker, government is committed to addressing air quality issues on the whole and not just those that relate to climate change.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable public attention on the need to reduce emissions at the Come By Chance oil refinery, particularly emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO₂). Therefore, over the past few months, I have met with company officials to discuss a number of outstanding environmental concerns, including emission levels. While these discussions are ongoing, I felt that it was appropriate at this time to inform the hon. members of the status of these discussions, particularly with respect to priority items.

A schedule of reductions has been agreed upon between the government and the refinery owners and operators in an Environmental Compliance Initiative. Mr. Speaker, government intends to hold North Atlantic Refining Limited to the commitments made under this agreement.

As a result of discussion with North Atlantic Refining Limited, the company has committed to install equipment, and have it operating within six months, at an estimated cost of $4.6 million which will reduce the sulphur dioxide emissions by 14,000 tonnes annually. This represents a decrease of approximately 33 per cent from last year's emission levels. We will continue to work with North Atlantic Refining Limited to ensure that further improvements are made in this area.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the company has been directed to treat and dispose of a stockpile of sour water at the refinery. Sour water is a by-product of the refining process and is composed of hydrogen sulphide and ammonia dissolved in water. In this regard, the company has improved the efficiency of their existing sour water stripper and also improved operations to reduce sour water production.

Mr. Speaker, another key environmental issue at the refinery relates to the impounding basin which serves a containment function in the event of leakage or a spill. Based on concerns expressed by the Department of Environment and Labour, work has begun to increase the capacity of the impounding basin by raising the height of its wall. This work is expected to be completed by December 31, 1997. Mr. Speaker, this is a positive development at the refinery as it will provide greater assurance that any leakage or spill of petroleum liquids will be contained on site and not released into the environment.

North Atlantic Refining Limited has also been directed to complete a comprehensive waste management plan by December 31, 1997. The objective of this plan is to have the company prevent or reduce waste before it occurs and to ensure proper storage and handling. The waste management plan will be reviewed by government for approval prior to implementation.

Mr. Speaker, government is satisfied with the level of cooperation that we have received lately from North Atlantic Refining Limited, and acknowledge that environmental conditions at the refinery have improved since the company has assumed ownership. To this end, the company has spent in excess of $16 million over the past three years on improvements that will benefit the environment. We fully expect North Atlantic Refining to continue to take steps towards addressing environmental issues at the refinery, including further efforts to ensure environmental conditions at the refinery meet acceptable standards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the minister for providing me a copy of his statement prior to the House opening.

Mr. Speaker, through his statement, he said the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not a major contributor to climate-change problems. I hope that this is not a message presented in Japan because Come By Chance is amongst the worst, not in Canada but in the continent, Mr. Speaker, for emission problems.

Mr. Speaker, they are saying that this year they are going to decrease the emissions by approximately 33 per cent. The Come By Chance target last year was 35,000 tons, if I remember properly, which represented an increase by 24 per cent of their target, Mr. Speaker; so I ask: Do numbers mean anything here?

I am asking that the minister keep a close eye to this and other projects in our Province, and I would like to say that our Party is in favour of industrial development and the creation of jobs in our Province. We have to do it in an environmentally acceptable standard, Mr. Speaker, so I hope that this minister will do a better job than this government has done in the past on controlling emissions in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, members of the House are aware that the TAGS program is scheduled to terminate in May 1998. This is a matter of great concern to over 20,000 individuals - and their families - who through no fault of their own, have been displaced from their traditional livelihood, as a result of the federal government's decision to close the ground fishery. It is also a matter of great concern to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Members of the House will also know that TAGS was implemented, with the expectation that the ground fishery would recover in the near future. TAGS was meant to provide support and assistance during the transition period in which the ground fishery was expected to recover.

Recent scientific evidence by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now indicate that it is unlikely the ground fishery will recover to significant levels in the foreseeable future.

In light of this reality, there is a clear need for a successor program to the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy Program. This has been acknowledged by Prime Minister Chrétien and Federal Fisheries Minister David Anderson. In our view, this is one of the most significant public policy issues facing our Province today, but it is also a national crisis that the Federal Government cannot ignore.

Mr. Speaker, we were very encouraged when the House of Commons Fisheries Committee recognized the urgency of the issue. They agreed to come to our Province, to see first-hand, the devastating impact of the groundfish moratorium on individuals, on communities and on the social and economic fabric of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

In doing so, the committee will hear the views of those most affected by the failure of the ground fishery. It is their views which should guide the Federal Government in addressing the challenge which arises when more than 20,000 people find themselves without their traditional livelihood and without the kind of support that has been afforded by TAGS.

Mr. Speaker, while we are encouraged by the decision of the Commons Fisheries Committee to come to Atlantic Canada and indeed, visit communities such as Tors Cove, Marystown, La Scie and others, we are very disappointed that their proposed schedule, as communicated to me by Committee Chairman, George Baker, does not include many of the other communities in our Province which were hardest hit by the moratorium. I refer specifically to the North East Coast of Newfoundland, the Great Northern Peninsula and coastal Labrador. The Committee has not scheduled time to hear from those individuals and groups that have been most affected.

As the Chairman of the Fisheries Committee indicated this morning on VOCM, the TAGS decision is likely to be made in early January. It is therefore imperative that the Fisheries Committee change its schedule to hold meetings in the hardest hit communities in our Province during their current visit.

Unless MPs hear from displaced fisheries workers, those workers will not have a voice in how this continuing crisis should be addressed. It is the fisherpeople of Newfoundland and Labrador who stand to lose and we cannot allow the Federal Government to dictate a solution in a vacuum without consulting those affected.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, it is with this in mind that I have provided this information to members of the House so that they can contact the members of the Fisheries Committee.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the first time that I have ever had the news release that I published two weeks ago, read in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Word for word, I say to the hon. minister.

Mr. Speaker, I called for exactly this two weeks ago. I called for this and I talked about the minister's cousin up in Ottawa, Mr. Baker, who said I jumped the gun, I did not know what I was talking about. He said I should have conferred with my Leader.

In afterthought I said: Maybe I do not know something so I conferred with my Leader. Mr. Baker said that he had consulted him, that he had wanted the meeting and this was his proposal. The Leader of the Official Opposition in this House has never spoken with George Baker in his life, has never talked to a member of the Committee. That is the shame in this.

I say to the members opposite, how about Bonavista? How about Fogo, Twillingate, and those other places on the Northeast Coast that are not included in this particular itinerary? How about the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs' district? The Members for Bellevue and Trinity North, not a queak on the people in their districts that have been devastated by the closure of the Northeast Coast fishery.

The other thing is, how about our own government? How about the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Where do you stand?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: What are your proposals to help us out in this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: So I call on members opposite and I call on the minister to come forward and consult with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, consult with the federal Minister of Human Resources Development, consult with the Premier's close friend, the Prime Minister, and get their ear to make sure that this Committee visits the Northeast Coast of this Province to hear first-hand the devastation that has been caused by the closure of the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to ask hon. members to join me in acknowledging November 16 to November 22 as Drug Awareness Week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This year's theme, "Discover the Magic! Be Drug Free," targets the youth of our Province by raising awareness about the use and misuse of alcohol, smoking, prescription drugs, and addictive behaviours through the School Health Curriculum. This is a most appropriate theme as it is based on magician Gary Summers' innovative Magic Show concept which teaches children how to make the right choices with respect to drug use and misuse. The activities taking place in many communities throughout the Province this week will serve as the launch of the Magic Show program Province-wide.

In recent years the use of contraband products, the abuse of prescription drugs, and addictions amongst youth has received increased attention in our Province. In 1996, the Addictions Services Division of the Department of Health administered the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Drug Use Survey to students in grades 7, 9, 10 and 12. The results of this survey indicated a substantial number of young people are consuming alcohol, using tobacco products, and experimenting with stimulants that physicians did not prescribe for them.

One of the recommendations arising from the 1996 survey was the need to develop additional drug prevention programs for students. As a result, a well-known magician, Mr. Gary Summers, began working with the department's Addictions Services Division to create an innovative and unique idea for teaching children the hazards of substance abuse through the use of magic.

This is a very important week, a very serious week, and I would ask hon. members to acknowledge this week as a national event organized to raise awareness about alcohol, drugs, and other addictions.

The 1997 provincial committee is a cooperative effort which is largely community-based and is composed of a number of dedicated individuals from police and community groups, as well as government, who have formed a partnership to raise public awareness surrounding these issues.

They include representatives from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Health's Addictions Services and Health Promotion Division, Community Health Regions, Allied Youth, Health Canada, and the Department of Education.

The Program was launched earlier this morning at the RNC Headquarters and will be available to school children in grades Kindergarten to 8 across the Province. I was fortunate to attend the ceremony this morning, along with representatives of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Robinson Blackmore, and students from Brother Rice High School, as well as having the RNC introduce their new poster program designed to target youth in our Province.

I would like to also today acknowledge in the gallery, RNC Inspector Connie Snow, Sergeants Paula Buckle and Sean Ryan, the Director of the Addictions Services Division of the Department of Health, Ms Beverly Clarke, and other departmental officials, Carol Ann MacDonald and Ellen Chalker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and two youth representatives from Brother Rice High School, Jeneane Cannizzaro and David Tipton, who give their full support to this program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present each hon. member with a Drug Awareness Week Kit. The Department of Health will distribute 6,000 of these kits to school children, community groups and businesses throughout the Province in preparation for the campaign.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly that we do our part and join the people of our Province today in marking this week, November 16-22, as Drug Awareness Week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement before she read it here today, and as well, of course, to congratulate her on reading her own statement.

The House, join with you today in supporting this particular project and this program. We as well today, welcome the members of the board to the House today and we would urge your department of course, to stay involved with such programs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I guess, where to start and the right place to start is with our children at a very early age so as they get older, they will certainly realize the dangers of drugs throughout our Province. They are on the go, they are everywhere and I think this is certainly a move in the right direction, so we, on this side of the House, fully support this endeavour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier and they deal with the Churchill Falls Development.

Now, over a year ago, the Premier went on a national public relations tour to change the Upper Churchill Contract. In fact, he stated publicly since that he is renegotiation that basic contract. Will the Premier admit today that, the basic contract is not on the negotiating table and explain to the people of this Province why he continues to mislead them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to get into an exchange about a negotiation which, for the moment, between Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Quebec is still confidential, but I can tell the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything is confidential (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, a negotiation is like that. The member opposite may not realize it and until such time have something to bring forward to the people of the Province, something to bring forward to the House of Assembly - but I can tell the member, to quote the words of Mr. Bouchard when we met last year at the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Premiers, that we are discussing all matters, the past, the present and the future and looking at all the opportunities to increase the viability, the take and the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador and to the Province of Quebec, and co-operating together with respect to hydro developments; and if the Leader of the Opposition wants me to stand up piecemeal and to get into a private negotiation on the floor of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to do that because it is not responsible and not in the best interests of this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, how times have changed in a year! A year ago he would not negotiate and he went across this country on a crusade and he would not sit down to the table and now he has changed re receiving 3 mils per kilowatt hour, now it is two-and-a-half and it will be two by the year 2016. I want to ask the Premier one, simple question, nothing to do with the details of negotiations. Can you tell us here today if it is on the negotiating table for the renegotiation of the basic rate and the basic contract with Hydro Quebec?

I have been informed by officials within the Quebec Government that it is not. Can you tell us the real truth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find the position of the Leader of the Opposition to be rather odd.

A year ago, I said on behalf of the people and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that the current contract is totally unacceptable as it stands, and that while the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is prepared and would prefer to negotiate a better arrangement - and I invite him to go back and read my speeches - at the end of the day, if a better arrangement is not negotiable, then the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will take unilateral action to put an end to the current arrangement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, and the Leader of the Opposition said I was irresponsible, that I should be sitting down talking with the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, we are now talking with the Province of Quebec and I am hopeful that something constructive will come out of it, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that if something constructive does not come out of it, we will exercise any and all other options open to us. For the moment, there is a constructive dialogue that we intend to continue.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I remember quite well, a year ago, when I said you should be sitting down negotiating, you passed it off as not having an interest in the future of this Province. I remember that, Premier; you were in Montreal at the time.

The Premier has not answered whether it is on the negotiating table, he is avoiding the question.

Now I want to move to another aspect of the Churchill Development. The Premier is finally acknowledging the Lower Churchill has a cheap and environmentally clean source and I called a year ago Premier to start negotiations there when you did not. Now it took the Premier a while but he is finally cluing in. Now can the Premier tell us today if he is negotiating with American companies or any other Canadian provinces, other than Quebec, to develop the Lower Churchill? If he is, what is the status of those developments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made such a constructive contribution to this debate, figuring out a year ago - most people figured out twenty-five years ago that Lower Churchill power is clean and environmentally friendly. He has made such a constructive contribution. I hope he goes on making that contribution for many years to come. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, one day he will have the responsibility for sitting on this side of the House and trying to do what is in the best interest of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can see that that meets with the consent unanimously given and enthusiastically expressed of his members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are doing our best to ensure that a fair share of the benefit of the Upper Churchill, the Lower Churchill, the hydro developments of Labrador flow through to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Every government of this Province of both political stripes have attempted to change this circumstance negotiated, Mr. Speaker, back in the 1960s. A year ago when I went to Montreal to say that we were serious about this, that we wanted a renegotiation or other actions would follow, the day that I arrived there the Leader of the Opposition was in the papers in Quebec in both English and French saying that Quebec ought to ignore us, that a contract was a contract and that nothing could be done to break the contract. He undermined the position of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the same party that said that a trans-shipment facility would never get built, that it was a negotiation that would never bring a positive result.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: This is the same that said there would never be an industrial facility at Argentia. Mr. Speaker, this is the same party that is interested only in failure. Mr. Speaker, on this side we are planning for success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier forgot to mention one key point, I was quoting the former Minister of Mines and Energy who said in this House in response to my question, `a contract is a contract,' I say to the Premier. That is the little white -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is now on a supplementary and it needs no preamble.

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked the Premier a very simple question, Mr. Speaker, and that simple question is, are you negotiating with any US companies or Canadian provinces for the development of the Lower Churchill? If you are, could you give this House an update on the status of those developments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we now have the Leader of the Opposition saying he is quoting somebody who is no longer here in saying, `a contract is a contract.' Is the Leader of the Opposition saying we should merely accept, lay down, lay quiet and accept this contract from now to the year 2041 because we are not prepared to accept this contract. We don't accept the Leader of the Opposition's assertion that a contract is a contract. We say this contract is so bad it has to be changed and we need a fair shake of the value of Upper Churchill power! That is what we say!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such an irresponsible position from an officer of this House than the notion that a contract is from now to 2041 Newfoundland and Labrador should lay down and take it on the chin? There is not a chance in this world we are going to do that, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier cannot tell us confidential information whether he is renegotiating the Upper Churchill contract. He cannot tell us if he has talked to people in the US or Canada on developing the Lower Churchill. What does he know? What does he know, Mr. Speaker?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask him again.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure if I will ask him again because he does not know the answer. He does not know who he talks to.

Potential investors have said that they need a detailed proposal. That is what they have indicated. I ask him, what is the status of this proposal and will the people of this Province have a chance to see it before another Liberal government goes off on a photo op instead of making the best deal for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon. Leader of the Opposition was. Are we talking to American investors? I went and gave a speech before the Canada-New England Business Council in Boston to about 350 energy investors about the Lower Churchill project. Yes, we are having discussions. We had a meeting in St. John's last week with a consortium which is internationally based which has a total of $35 billion in sales which has met with myself and the Minister of Mines and Energy and has said: In the event you do not pursue to conclusion negotiations with the Province of Quebec on the development of the Lower Churchill, we - this is one consortium - are interested in being involved in this project. We would be interested in being involved in a variety of ways.

So yes, I must confess - and I hope you go and tell your sources in Hydro Quebec whom you represent with the view that a contract is a contract - that it is not the only partner we are talking to, nor is it the only partner we are willing to sit down and do a deal with, if it means increased benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Leader of the Opposition is looking worried that we might have more success and prosperity forced upon the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I say, get ready for it! The next twenty-four months are going to see this Province take off with a bang!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to tell the Premier I have no fears of that happening while he is in that chair. I have no fears of that.

The Premier has spoken with a major company. He just told us he is negotiating, and he has with a major company. Have you provided to them what investors have called for with a detailed proposal, and could you name that company you are now negotiating with on the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is all very interesting, but it is very clear that the real concern of the Leader of the Opposition - and frankly, the people of the Province are able to make a judgement on their own - is that there might be a bit of good news in the Province, that there might be some positive development.

IOCC in Labrador City has discovered 1 billion new tons of iron ore to keep Labrador West going for the next fifty years. Not a word from the Leader of the Opposition. The Hibernia offshore oil and gas field has come into production one month early; the reserves have been pushed up by 100 million barrels; the daily production from 135,000 to 170,000. Not a word by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Conference Board of Canada, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - all of the chartered banks have forecast that Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country in GDP growth next year. Not a word from the Leader of the Opposition!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only word from the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: - is the same sound the Grinch makes. He is unhappy with the possibility we might have a happy Christmas in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted with the great Tory offshore project where oil is coming ashore when nobody else believed in it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: John Crosbie (inaudible) Hibernia and the offshore when the Premier sat in Opposition and complained about it! That is what I say to him. Now the Premier wants to take credit for discovering 1 billion tons of iron ore. Where were you for the last ten and fifteen or twenty years, I say to the Premier?

The Premier and this government are allowing private companies to dam off rivers all over this Province. We have heard of Fig River in Labrador, with Star Lake and the attempt on the Humber, and numerous others. I ask the Premier, will he admit that these developments are going to jeopardize the development of the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to put...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to get the leader of the new Newfoundland Party back as a research assistant to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, his responses are very pertinent and very informative. We have learned a lot today in response here, I say to the Premier, very, very much.

It is very interesting to note that private developers, buyers and investors are chomping at the bit to get into the Hydro market. Yet, the Premier is now only talking about potential investors for the Lower Churchill.

I ask the Premier: Where have you been all along? He has known of increased energy demands since taking office. I ask him: What is his government waiting for to get development under way?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the river developments that the hon. member is talking about are four small Hydro developments which will occur on the Island portion of the Province which are less than fifty megawatts of power. The Churchill Falls, the lower development of Churchill at Gull Island and Muskrat, represent 3,100 megawatts of power. I can assure you, there will be no trouble attracting investment from around the world to develop these particular sites.

So, I do not know what the hon. member is saying. If he is worried about investment, I tell him to relax, there is no problem with investment. The problem is getting the fundamentals right on the Lower Churchill deal, so that it benefits this Province well into the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I really do.

The hon. member - I noticed his seat is moved. He is firing verbal bullets across the House. `Hitman Jack' - if he were not so (inaudible) challenged, I would call him Wolfman Jack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Energy is one question behind, that is the question before last, the Premier was two behind.

One final question, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier reveal to us the long-term energy plan that this government has for the Province, when the previous administration, the previous minister and Premier indicated that we do not need to have a plan because it locks us in? Can I ask him if they changed on that and what is your long-term energy plan for the development of this Province and can you table it in the House?

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

MR. FUREY: With respect to electricity, Mr. Speaker, the policy is contained in the Electrical Power Control Act. That Act sits on the table, it lays out the parameters of the future. Hydro, which is a Crown corporation, sets the forecast for the demands that are required well into the future. With respect to other energy sources, we have our gas offshore, which -

MR. SULLIVAN: Tore up Hydro's plan.

MR. FUREY: We did not tear up Hydro's plan. Hydro sets out a plan which delivers forecasts of what the energy requirements will be. If there is an anomaly that happens within that five-year context -and there has been, that is called Voisey's Bay - that obviously changes the forecast, and it increased it in this case to the tune of 200 megawatts. You talked about energy development.

We also have a plan, with respect to the Lower Churchill. We think that it is very important in a deregulated electricity environment to find an interconnect for the Island, because people have to understand that in the North American context, electricity rates are going down, and that is because the market place is opening up under the new FERC 888 regulation. We need that interconnect for the Island because we have 150 megawatts of hydro power that is safe, that can be developed in the next ten years.

So, I think, if we want to focus on something in terms of an energy plan, we need to find a way to connect and tap into that great resource called Muskrat Falls and bring it to the Province, so that we can have surplus energy to induce business to come here well into the future.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are directed to the Premier.

Why does the Premier continue to allow his minister responsible for public tendering, to do business through his department using public monies, with companies that involve either the minister or the minister's family? Why is the Premier, pawning off on the Commissioner, his own responsibility as First Minister, to eliminate either the fact or the appearance of a conflict of interest, in ministers who are spending the money of the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has just made a statement that makes no specific allegation. He is a lawyer, so he is very careful not to make a specific allegation because he knows -

The people of the Province ought to be aware of what is happening. This is a very careful way to slander somebody without making any specific allegations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a lawyer.

PREMIER TOBIN: He is a lawyer, and he is practising the craft very carefully.

The fact of the matter is, and the member opposite knows this, that the minister to whom he has just referred is in full compliance - and you know this to be the case - full compliance with the code today, has gone beyond the code as is required today. You know further that the minister involved plays no role, no direct role, in the awarding of these contracts. It is done according to the Public Tender Act and he has no role in this whatsoever.

The companies in question have been around for twenty-five years. Now, is the member saying that there has been a specific wrongdoing or benefit which is accrued to the minister or to these companies as a result of an action he has taken? I will give him a commitment. If he can cite me any evidence of that, I will have the minister's resignation in thirty seconds. But I say this: If he is serious about this allegation, make it; we will investigate it. If the minister has done anything wrong, the minister will be asked for his resignation. If the minister has not done anything wrong, put your seat on the line and you resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in recent days has stated publicly that he believes the minister is not in conflict because the company's affairs have been placed in a blind trust. I ask the Premier: How blind can a blind trust be, Mr. Speaker, when your family member is managing it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to call this gentleman's integrity on the floor of the House right now, the man who is making these statements. It is very easy to make allegations, to smear reputations. Now we have to find out if the gentleman opposite has courage, character and integrity.

You make a specific allegation, and if there is any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever, I will secure the minister's resignation immediately. Make the allegation, but if the allegation does not stand up, I ask you, Sir, to have the courage of your convictions and put your job on the line, or apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in this context the word `integrity' is a difficult concept, but I must respond by saying to the Premier, I now call into question your integrity, Mr. Premier, and I will say why.

The question that I just asked - the very question that I just asked - comes from the Commons Debates, April 30, 1986, when in the House of Commons the man who is now sitting in the Premier's chair of this Province asked, as the federal member for the District of Humber - Port-au-Port - St. Barbe, `Mr. Speaker, how blind can a blind trust be when your spouse is managing it?'

I now say to the hon. member: Why the double standard? Why is what was acceptable some eleven years ago not acceptable today? Why it is that what is sauce for the goose is no longer sauce for the gander?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat what I have said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: No, no, I am asking all the members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am asking all of the members to look across the floor at the hon. Lloyd Matthews, who has served in this place honourably since 1989. Colleagues, look at your fellow colleague. Will one of you stand and make a charge against this minister? Will one of you stand and impugn his integrity? Will one of you stand and say he is a criminal or a crook? Will one of you stand and say he has benefited himself illegally?

If one of you has the courage, stand and make the allegation. If it is proven, this minister will resign immediately. If it is not proven, put your job on the line or take back these scandalous accusations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The Throne Speech, 1989, at the time of the former leadership of Mr. Wells: The government must not and will not do business with a minister or any member of a minister's immediate family, or any company or firm in which a minister or any member of a minister's immediate family has any financial interest whatsoever. There must be no room for suggestion of improper dealing, real or perceived - I stress, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - real or perceived -

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - by any minister of the Crown. I ask the hon. the Premier to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying that the member opposite knows he is making a false charge. He hasn't the courage of his convictions. He hasn't the courage to go outside the door of this House after Question Period and make a specific allegation because he knows he would find himself in a court of law and that he would be subject to a civil suit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I cannot make it clearer. If the member can provide any evidence of any wrongdoing, this minister will resign. But if this member has a shred of backbone, which I doubt he has, one iota of backbone, he would stand and make a specific allegation and put his job on the line. Let him do his job. I am fully prepared to do mine.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the minister responsible for rural renewal in the Province, and also he is the minister heading up the committee that is going around this Province to revitalize rural Newfoundland. I think that is the logo of the minister now as he heads it up.

As I looked at an itinerary just a little while ago of this committee that is travelling the Province to revitalize rural Newfoundland, I happened to look at the tour that happened on the West Coast, when some thirteen meetings were held on the West Coast of hundreds of communities for this revitalization committee. Out of the thirteen meetings, eight were held in Corner Brook. This is now, remember, the revitalization of rural Newfoundland - eight in Corner Brook out of the thirteen that were on the West Coast of this Province, one on the civic centre.

I ask the minister: When is he planning on taking this committee, as he mentioned on a committee on the fisheries just a few minutes ago, when is he going to take this committee to the real heart of the problem in this Province, which is rural Newfoundland, so that it can hear first-hand what plans this Province has to revitalize rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. gentleman does part of his homework but does not do all of his homework. I would remind him that there are twenty regional economic development boards in this Province. The particular itinerary that he talked about, the specific point of that trip was to meet with a regional economic development board around the Corner Brook region, which includes Corner Brook, Deer Lake, and so on.

I would remind him that we visited the Strait of Bell Isle, we have been up in Roddickton, we have been up in St. Anthony, we have been across the Straits to Labrador, and I must say, we have had a pretty reception everywhere we have gone. We have been in Central Newfoundland. I think last week we were in the district of the member from Bay d'Espoir. We have got excellent reports out of those places.

We are taking back the points that people are making to us, and we intend within the next little while to put together all of those suggestions, and indeed present them to this House. The hon. gentleman will then know that we have done - as a matter of fact, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that it was only last - when was it we were down to Springdale? Only last week that we were down in the hon. member's area and received a zonal report down there, a strategic economic plan, from that group. Mr. Speaker, we intend to fully put all those things into place.

The Corner Brook thing - I think we looked at a few things while we were out there as well. We did more - we went beyond the call of duty. I have to say to the hon. gentleman that the reports we are getting back from those visits are very favourable.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister, if I am doing half of my homework, that is 50 per cent more than the minister is doing when it comes to rural Newfoundland. Because I can tell the minister now that yes, the great meetings, the big list of meetings that we have here, from Corner Brook, one on the civic centre, when are you going to go out - I will ask the question again - into rural Newfoundland?

I ask the Premier: Are you satisfied today that this minister and Rural Renewal, there for two years, which has followed through since an Economic Recovery Commission of the previous Administration? If the minister is here standing in this House today and believing inside this Chamber that it is all fine and it is all excellent work being done in rural Newfoundland, and there are all kinds of great things happening -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: - he had better think again. I ask the minister again on this revitalization of rural Newfoundland, the great Cabinet Committee he has going around: When are you going to go out into the bowels of the problem? When is this minister going to talk to people in rural Newfoundland who have the real problems of staying in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: I do not know where the hon. gentleman is coming from. The truth of the matter is that this committee already, within what, three months? has covered half the Province and got back half the strategic economic plans in this Province.

Now, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that we did not pass out any fish processing licences like the hon. gentleman's crew opposite used to do. I also have to say to him that we have not received any recommendations on the way to revitalize rural Newfoundland is to construct Sprung Greenhouses; we do not have any of that. We have some very sensible projects - coach him `Harvey', he needs it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that we have some very worthwhile projects and I will tell you what: I will provide the hon. gentleman with a list of projects that we have approved even, to this point, and he will see how active this committee has been.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should look closely at what we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. TULK: I know, like his leader, he would hate for us to be successful; he would hate for us to do anything good for the people of Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: He wants us to play Grinch; Christmas is coming again and they want us to play Grinch, but it is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from residents of Bonavista South, residents of Bellevue, Terra Nova, Trinity North, and it has to do with the removing of bridges and culverts on the Bonavista railway bed, once again. I thought I had all those petitions presented but, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I found another lot of them here in my desk. I will not read the prayer of the petition because it is obvious what the spirit of it is and it is obvious what the intent is of the hundreds and hundreds of people who have come forward to sign this petition.

What they are asking for, I will repeat once again, Mr. Speaker, is to allow those bridges and those culverts to continue to exist on the Bonavista railway bed. They are asking once again for government to look at the cost of removing those bridges and to take that cost and put it forward for repairs rather than for removal. A lot of the people out in this particular area use the railroad bed for recreational purposes. A lot of them use it, Mr. Speaker, to extract firewood and a lot of them use it for commercial purposes. We have sawmills located along the railroad bed and they use that particular roadway or thoroughfare to bring their logs or their sawed lumber back to the main road.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the very few areas of the Province which ATV owners can access. They are not allowed to use their ATVs, ski-doos or quads on the road. They are not allowed to use them on wetlands. People complain when they use them to cross private property. So here is a natural trail, if you would, that has been existing there for years and all it needs is a small amount of money in order to upkeep the bridges that already exist. Those people are not asking for those bridges to be constructed in a way to accommodate tractor-trailers or trains or in some cases not even vehicular traffic. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, they only want them constructed to a level to maintain ski-doos and ATVs. I do not think they are asking for too much. The people themselves have been responsible by saying: We do not mind entering into a partnership with government. We do not mind entering into a partnership whereby we will supply free labour if we have to, if government will supply material.

The minister has been down there and I know he has personally driven over the old railway bed all the way from Clarenville or Shoal Harbour to Bonavista. He has seen first-hand the number of bridges that need - or that he was talking about removing. He has seen first-hand the condition of those bridges. I think he is now looking at what the cost would be to remove so that they can have some figure to bring forward to the stakeholders and to see what kind of money can be put in place in order to maintain those structures.

Mr. Speaker, people should never forget that the people, who use those ATVs in the form of recreation or in the form of doing work for themselves or commercial work, also pay taxes. They generate money. They generate revenue for the government. They generate revenue, Mr. Speaker, by the very purchase of those machines. They generate revenue by buying gasoline, by maintaining and repairing the ATVs and the ski-doos to which I am referring.

So, Mr. Speaker, I call on the minister and I call on the government to take those petitions into consideration, take the people's wishes into consideration and when they make a decision on what to do with those particular bridges on the Bonavista branch that they will consider the wishes of the people and hopefully look at replacing and repairing the bridges rather than removing them.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

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

I just want to rise for a minute or so to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South and draw attention to the fact that this petition has now been before the House on many occasions. It begs the question as to how many times the member will bring forward this particular petition from the residents of his district and in the general area of Bonavista Bay and ask the government and the appropriate minister when will the government start to listen to the people who have signed this petition? Because it is a very reasonable request they have. They simply want to preserve the bridge in there because it is an integral part of their road and their recreational network.

So I say to the government members on the other side, when we bring forward petitions and we keep bringing the same petition forward, we do it for a reason. It is because the people who sign these petitions believe very strongly in the position that is being put forward, and they are awaiting responses from the appropriate ministers. What we have seen here is that we have had the petition put forward in the spring session, now the petitions are coming forward in the Fall session. This is six months later, and we wish we had not had reason to bring the petition forward. We would have hoped that the government, by this time, would have seen reason to respond to the people's very reasonable request.

Therefore, I say to my hon. colleague, the Member for Bonavista South, keep representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Keep representing the grass-roots people, the people who want their voices heard, and we call upon the government to start listening to the ordinary people, the people who want a little bit of help to make their lives as comfortable and as pleasant as possible.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could - and I could do those individually or I could do them en masse, but I would like to do them en masse - to move first reading on Motions 4 through 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, but we will take them in the order in which they are listed here.

MR. TULK: I would ask to speak to them one at a time, (inaudible), if we could, or I could ask them one at a time. Which is -

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is up to the House.

MR. TULK: I am asking leave to -

MR. SPEAKER: It is up to the House if you want to take them all at once or -

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I guess what I am asking is, rather than my standing up and calling the Orders, that the Speaker would read the bills one after the other from 4 through 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we do not have any objection to doing them en masse if that is your wish and for your convenience; however, we would wish that these bills be distributed as they are called today. I think that is the whole purpose of doing it now, and we concur.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could do the introductions individually and then take first readings collectively.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act", carried. (Bill No. 40)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act". (Bill No. 32)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code". (Bill No. 21)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Transfer Of The Personal Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Montreal Trust Company Of Canada And Montreal Trust Company To The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust Company". (Bill No. 24)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act". (Bill No. 37)

A bill "An Act To Enable Information To Be Filed Electronically By Business," carried. (Bill No. 38)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act," carried. (Bill No. 31)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill entitled, " An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act," carried. (Bill No. 35)

Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill No. 6)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill No. 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund." (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act." (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act." (Bill No. 4)

On motion, Bill Nos. 40; 32; 21; 24; 37; 38; 31; 35; 6; 36; 39; 34; 30; 29; 27; 26 and 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

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

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1997. By the way of Supplementary Supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

Sgd.: ______________________________

A. Maxwell House, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the message, together with the amount contained in Bill No. 28, be referred to Committee of Supply. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, and that I do now leave the Chair.

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

CHAIR (Mr. M. Penney): Order, please!

Motion number two.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider Certain Resolutions for the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill No. 28)

If the Chair could establish, before we begin debate, whether there is in fact an understanding of the time of debate by both sides of the Legislature. Traditionally the Standing Orders will allow thirty minutes, but it has been the practice of the House in the last few years that we accept a shorter period of time for debate. Has there been an understanding?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, to be quite frank with you, we are quite easy on this matter. If the Opposition wishes to speak thirty minutes, it can, if it wishes to follow up, we have always done ten and ten back and forth, that is fine. As long as the debate is what it should be and if the debate is far-reaching and the debate is to the point. We want Opposition to have all the time they need to do what needs to be done.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We concur with the ten-minute rotation schedule we have always followed, and we welcome the opportunity to be far-reaching and have a thorough discussion. We just want the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to justify why he would need $75 million. We are going to welcome that opportunity.

CHAIR: It is the understanding of the Chair, then, that hon. members have agreed to a system of ten minutes each and that if any hon. member requires more than the ten minutes allocated, leave will be requested and will be granted. Is that understood?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To speak briefly to the bill, on the back of the bill, the reverse, is a breakdown of the $75,700,000. I will just briefly speak to each category.

The $10 million in the Consolidated Fund Services were monies used for the voluntary departure program that government initiated last spring to ease downsizings in the public service.

Finance received $12 million, and that is in a fund to do two things: One is to assist privatization and divestiture activities as they occur. Two recent examples would be the Marystown Shipyard; the other would be Newfoundland Farm Products. There may be others of that sort, and that fund is there for that purpose.

The second is a capital grant to the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation. That has two objectives: One is to help with an increasing debt load. The second is to allow the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to work with municipalities whose debts are very substantial, as well as those who wish to pre-pay some existing indebtedness and would incur substantial penalty.

The amount of $10 million to the Enterprise Development Fund is to assist with strategic enterprise development opportunities such as call centres, which require some level of government assistance.

The $32.8 million in Education is for the following sub-categories: $16 million, members will recall, was budgeted last fiscal year in order to pay the payday that had been moved forward into the current fiscal year. Since that was an accounting change, we believe that as we had surplus funds last year to pay that, the payday should be moved back into that last fiscal year.

Nine million dollars was allotted to pay school board debt and operating lines of credit. That wiped out the debt and put the school boards back in a position where they were able to go forward without any operating liabilities.

Two million five hundred thousand dollars, members will recall, was allotted to schools to purchase computers and we had encouraged school boards to find matching funds.

Five million three hundred thousand dollars was given to Memorial University to pay government's obligation of matching funds raised by the University under its opportunity fund.

That total of $16 million, $9 million, $2.5 million and $5.3 million is $32.8 million.

In the Department of Health, we budgeted $3.5 million in a Special Warrant at the time. One million dollars of that was to pay the rural physicians' bonuses which had been contracted some several years previously and which came due on or about April 1. The second was to provide $2.5 million to the Health Care Corporations of the Province to purchase needed equipment. We also encouraged them at that time to see if they could raise matching funds from their charitable groups that raise funds in our various communities and health care areas.

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, we allotted $4 million to provide transitional assistance to the cities of St. John's and Corner Brook in respect of fire protection services. The government had indicated in its budget that it was eliminating the grant it had for many years given to both municipalities in lieu of taxes being paid by the Provincial Government for the protection of the buildings that exist in a more substantial way in these two cities.

Finally, $3.4 million was given to NLHC to offset a budgetary shortfall for the last fiscal year.

The amounts which I have delineated indicate that these are amounts not for the current fiscal year, but for last fiscal year. The Special Warrants were tabled in the House some time ago and, of course, the Supplementary Supply Bill is necessary in order to clean up the method of financing and in compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is a lot of money the Minister of Finance is looking for, $75.7 million, a good chunk of change, I might add. So, I assume basically and if I remember correctly, that the responsibilities under the municipal fire operations one, is that, in future now St. John's and Corner Brook will pick up full responsibility for covering our government buildings. That is a one time thing and right now the next step you will have is to get out and collect some taxes off government to help look after buildings or whatever in the future. I guess that is the avenue that is open now. There is no more obligation as a result of this to fund Corner Brook and St. John's.

I do not think, Minister, there was any money given to other municipalities for any government buildings. They were the only ones receiving it, I think, and you discontinued that. Would I be correct in stating that?

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: And now there are none. They are all alike now - they are all out in the one category.

Under the $3,400, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Housing operation assistance. In other words, they were over budget in the grant for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and this was the amount for them to balance the books on their expenditures in addition to what was allocated in our budget, basically. The $3,400, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, they had a budgetary shortfall.

Was their any specific item or extraordinary thing that precipitated this $3.4 million? Was there any particular extraordinary item or any particular purpose of expenditure by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation that required this $3.4 million, that was not anticipated by budget time?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, my recollection - and I stand to be corrected by the minister who unfortunately is not here - is that in their budget, NLHC had budgeted to the best of a certain number of buildings, market value buildings were reforming the mandate of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to focus more on social housing. As you know, during the process of selling commercial properties they have at Churchill Square and elsewhere, particularly in St. John's, my recollection is that that money was budgeted to them because they had budgeted for the sale of Elizabeth Towers, I believe, and others. So that was a shortfall, not on operations but on being unable to divest of major market properties that they have, commercial properties for the most part. So that is my recollection of why that money was given to them in last year's budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So basically we are saying their budget anticipated those sales in the last fiscal year and it did not materialize until this fiscal year or whatever. So that amount was made - in other words, the revenues from the sale of the buildings, rather than reflect back, were going to reflect into the revenues of Labrador Housing to offset their expenditures and when it did not materialize in that year there had to be an allocation and a special warrant to deal with that amount to balance their budget that was allocated to them.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That would be correct.

Order in Council 97-161, that is $12 million of which was to Industrial Assistance Grants and Subsidies and Financial Assistance to Crown Corporations, Grants and Subsidies. One was $3 million - and Industrial Assistance Grants and Subsidies, $3 million. Did I hear the minister correctly when he indicated that the financial assistance to a Crown corporation, Newfoundland Farm Products, was included in that, or was that in a different one? Could the minister provide a breakdown of the $3 million for Industrial Assistance Grants and Subsidies of what specific requirement arose that precipitate this expenditure here in those two areas? That is the one with $12 million there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Of the $12 million, $9 million was given to NMFC. That immediately paid down the book debt of NMFC by the $9 million. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is determining how, if at all, it will be allocated to various municipalities in the Province. As you know, the government has made substantial changes to the operating credits in the municipalities. Some are having more difficulty than others. The other thing the minister is doing is permitting certain municipalities to pay out some longer term loans they had because interest rates right now are much lower. The unfortunate thing with that is NMFC borrowed substantial amounts on national bond markets so they are locked into long-term obligations. The question is then a penalty. For example, we might have to levy a penalty of 15 per cent to 20 per cent on NMFC.

We put this $9 million to give the minister some flexibility to deal with probably in excess of 100 municipalities in this Province that need some level of assistance. Not all will receive it but he has some latitude there to help municipalities restructure their debt burdens and most of that, as you know, is through NMFC. So it is $9 million there. That money is paid down. That money is gone. How the accounts of the various municipalities are adjusted is something that we have left virtually, entirely in the hands of the minister.

The second part, the $3 million, is a fund to facilitate divesture. As of this point in time, I do not believe much, if any, of it has been spent. It is there to assist with some divesture activities. I illustrated that the types of things it would be used for would be Marystown Shipyard, Newfoundland Farm Products but some of that debt may be assumed by the Province rather than being paid out of this fund because the amounts, as you know, are far beyond that. The Marystown Shipyard, I think, has a debt right now of something in the vicinity of $70 million, for example, but the notion is that if we are able to divest of various enterprises that government has been carrying on, we would need some monies available to shift those to the private sector. That is the reason those funds were provided, but as to this point in time, we have not budgeted anything specific, for example, to deal with NLHC. I suspect that most of that debt will probably be just absorbed by the Province or put on the books of the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is my understanding that when a municipality wants to refinance its debt and there is a certain penalty imposed, that the municipality absorbs that penalty, and if they go to a bank to refinance that, of course, that is built into their loan. If they want to refinance $1 million worth of debt and there is a penalty -depending on how long - the year and the duration of that particular bond - the penalties would vary, of course, and would be substantially less during the latter end of that. My understanding is that they are responsible for that, that they will have to refinance this with the bank.

Would this be cases where the municipality - where you figured that they are in a difficult position, over their heads basically, and they should only refinance, absolve them of a penalty and only refinance a certain amount and help cushion to get them basically over the hump, that they are not refinancing beyond their means. Would that be the purpose? Because I am of the understanding that in normal circumstances you would pay that penalty and either take out a bank loan or refinance it to that effect.

If the minister could clarify that particular one there, I would certainly appreciate it.

CHAIR (Mr. D. Oldford): The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: In an ideal world it should operate as the member suggests, that we would indicate to them what the loss to the NMFC is by way of having to receive now funds that it cannot reinvest. For example, NMFC may have a debt obligation of $50 million to repay over the next ten years at 12 per cent. A municipality may be able to go out and find that is at 5 per cent or 6 per cent. We may be only able to reinvest it at, say, 7 per cent. There is a loss of 5 per cent per year.

The penalty should really be comprised of that 5 per cent per year because our ability to reinvest that long term, the opportunities are not as great now. In fact, the opportunities do not exist to obtain interest payments of the same level that we had before; however, as you know, there are two factors in it. Most municipalities do not pay the full amount of the NMFC indebtedness. There is a cap. The minister is here; I believe it may be 30 per cent of your budget that you actually pay towards your debt. Many municipalities in this Province are beyond that, so NMFC has in some cases to absorb that. In addition to that, the minister has that money to give him some flexibility to deal with municipalities as to how to allocate it, because the municipalities have debt obligations back to the Province.

It is a fairly amorphous thing. The money is gone; the debt is paid down. How and to what extent it is allocated among the various municipalities is something for the minister to work with individual municipalities in order to encourage them to become more fiscally responsible and put them on a somewhat sounder footing.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am assuming this is over and above, beyond basically, monies now that might be allocated within the department to help communities that are in over their heads with debt retirement.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: With the MOG cutbacks, I guess, over the next three years of twenty, twenty and twenty, it certainly frees up dollars to allocate the debt requirement assistance. That is a different aspect. This is in normal, ongoing communities that want to refinance. Would that be separate?

MR. DICKS: Both.

MR. SULLIVAN: it is really wrapped in one. It is just a continuation with different dollars available under the program?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under Ex-Gratia and Other Payments - Non-Statutory, Employee Benefits, that is, I guess, under, as the minister already said, the Voluntary Departure Program. There was $10 million earmarked there under that program.

How many people would be involved with that? What would be the number of people who availed of that, with the expenditure of $10 million, in the last fiscal year? How many jumped at the opportunity? I know we had a voluntary - I forget the specific name at the moment.

MR. DICKS: Departure.

MR. SULLIVAN: A Voluntary Departure Program, I think it was called. And there was another program, basically, I think, that has been extended for anybody who wishes to go out and take a retirement option, basically, under certain penalties, depending on age, I guess, under 55. How many might have availed of that in the last fiscal year that would have necessitated - this is in addition to the head. I am not looking at right now, immediately, what it was last year already, but how many additionally availed of it over what was budgeted and anticipated there? How many people for that $10 million?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Approximately 220 people took advantage of it. The $10 million roughly covered the cost of those people. It ended up being pretty well exactly where we forecast. We anticipated between 200 people and 250 people would take advantage of it, somewhere in the vicinity. I think 223 people or 229 people actually took advantage of it. They had to do it before the end of March 31.

It was difficult to budget an exact amount because depending on the person's length of service and the time to the thirty-five year mark, and their salary grid, you could not tell beforehand how many, or exactly the amount you would need. My recollection is that virtually all of the $10 million, if not something more, was exhausted by the voluntary departure program. So it pretty well was all taken up with that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I found a line item. There was initially $20.9 million budgeted, and showing in the revised amount, 1996-1997, was $27.4 million. I guess the total amount extra required over and above what was originally in this category altogether was this extra $10 million. That has been fully utilized. Is there any of it - I guess, nothing of any significance.

MR. DICKS: Not a substantial amount.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a sufficient amount at least to carry it over. Okay.

Ten million dollars to the Enterprise Loan Fund, loans, advances, and investments, the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. I was listening to the minister earlier. I did not catch which one that Farm Products was under. Would this be...?

MR. DICKS: No, the other one, the $3 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. DICKS: Maybe I could clarify the (inaudible) for the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. If we just look at - maybe while I am on this one, I would just ask the minister, and then I will just sit down, the $10 million - the one I am dealing with now is the Enterprise Loan Fund, loans, advances, and investments. That extra $10 million, what might that have been directed to?

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

MR. DICKS: If I could differentiate between the two. In the $12 million there was $3 million to assist with divestiture. Those are enterprises that government owns, or activities that government now carries on. For example, if a municipality were interested in taking over some provincially-operated facility, we might from that fund give them a certain grant over a number of years to subsidize their future costs of looking after the facility. That would come out of the $3 million. The way to think of that is that is to help us shift things that we may now do to the private sector, or to another level of government, mostly municipal, I would expect.

The $10 million that was allotted to ENL, essentially, or the Enterprise Development Fund, is money that is intended to entice and enlarge businesses in the Province. The best example for that would be a call centre. In order to get them to come here, you have to give them so much per job; you have to give them certain tax concessions and so on. The money that would be paid to assist businesses which come here and need to be enticed here would come from this $10 million fund. That is not divesting of government activities; it is to provide some seed money to help new sections of the economy grow.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know, with call centres that would not have been in 1996-1997, that specific example, but you are using it as an example.

MR. DICKS: No. The money was set aside for that purpose.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you give any specific ones where it might have been allocated then? For example, you do not have any areas where expenditures - we do not have any figures where that $10 million might have gone. The minister does not have any figures on where we spent it –

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we have a Warrant for it. There should be some area earmarked. We do not toss out $10 million without knowing where it is going.

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Chairman, we do not toss the money out. What we do is we allocate it and we leave it to Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. As the hon. member is aware, each year it was getting in the vicinity of $15 million. When we would give it that money we would not know where it would be spent. We would leave it to their judgement as to which of any enterprises to fund.

We cut that back by some $5 million, but then what we decided to do last year - or we cut it back to $5 million for regular ongoing activities. What we did want to do was to establish a special fund of money that would be devoted to fairly high-level initiatives to entice more substantial businesses to come into the Province, or to enable our own pre-existing businesses, those that now operate in the Province, to expand.

The only one that I know of offhand that might currently have access to the fund are some of the call centres that we are looking at organizing in the Province. That is not to say that it could not be used for other purposes, but that would be done at a fairly high level. So it is not to fund the ordinary day-to-day commercial lending activities, essentially, of the ENL fund, it is to be a special amount set aside for more substantial ventures which require more substantial contribution by the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is an addition of $10 million to that head. Does the minister know offhand - I do not have it right in front of me - what the initial amount was, under that head?

MR. DICKS: The initial amount for -

MR. SULLIVAN: Under that head. This is an addition of $10 million to that head. What was the total amount in this category?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: The total amount in this category was $5 million. You may recall that the lending fund of ENL was in the vicinity of $15 million. It varied I think, between $14 million and $17 million. Their ordinary lending fund was cut back to $5 million last year because of some things on the horizon, particularly at the call centre, and there was another one pending which decided to go to Halifax instead. We knew we would need a substantial amount of money to provide for the sort of enticements that would enable us to have them come here to locate. The $10 million was set aside with that in mind and also to provide a specific fund that you could access for high level subsidies for large employers who would establish in the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to have the minister provide to me a breakdown of the total amount expended under that area. I am sure if the minister could provide - certainly, I do not expect it right now - a table, or provide to me what specific ventures these were directed towards.

MR. DICKS: If I may, Mr. Chairman: One of my colleagues is better informed in this area than I am because it is in her responsibility, and she will certainly be prepared to provide a little better information at this time. I will be back (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will save the rest for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: On the money for the call centres, we have dispersed about $2 million of that. The idea was to have a fund there that would enable us to attract businesses that would otherwise not come to the Province; you recognize that we are in competition with other provinces in trying to attract businesses of this calibre. So that is what would have come out of that $10 million to date.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So the allocation, basically, was a warrant in the 1996-1997 Budget. In other words, you have carried forward, on the books, $8 million that you have at your disposal, which has officially gone into last year's statement. That is out of last year's budget, basically, to work with.

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so that is all that has been spent. Initially, I think there was- what? - $5 million under that head? I think that is what the Minister of Finance indicated.

MS FOOTE: Yes, that is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Towards what might that have gone?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: Traditionally, there would have been anywhere from $12 to $15 million for the Department of Development and Rural Renewal to be expended through what was Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and that was cut back to about $5 million in the last Budget. Those are funds that are used from time to time to assist companies that want to expand their operations. When I say assist companies, it would be on a loan basis; so the money would be a type of revolving fund. It was not a grant, but it was the type of money that people could apply for if they wanted to expand their operations or new businesses that wanted to be set up and wanted to apply for funding.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So that would be in line with any ENL funding, basically? It would be under the basic rates that were set down for that purpose?

MS FOOTE: The same thing, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Finance is not here. This one is under the health area, and I am sure the Minister of Health might be able to enlighten us on this one.

I was just going through, I say to the Minister of Health, the warrants for expenditures within the Department of Health that the minister tabled in Bill No. 28.

The $1 million for physicians' services: That basically, as the minister indicated, was to pay the bonuses that were due, that were announced. I guess that came due over the past two years. As the minister, I am sure, is fully aware, even before her coming into the portfolio there were three categories, of course, at $5,000, $7,500 and $10,000, depending on what geographical area of the Province in which you are practising. So this was to pay up, I guess, when the physicians had stayed two years in those areas.

I am just wondering: Was this the total amount or was there already an allocation expended there? Furthermore, I think important: Does this year's budget have an amount that is anticipating the bonuses that would be paid up for this current year; rather then have to come back on special warrants? Because when physicians are out there practising, I am sure there is a budget allowance made to do an estimate of what the pay out might be at the end of the year; not to wait and hope to have a few surplus dollars or a few dollars to direct into that or dip into a contingency fund to do so.

Would the minister be able to answer simply - I will say it again: Was this the total amount paid out in bonuses or did this only represent a portion of it and has there been an allowance made in this year's budget to project what it might be rather then have to come back under a special warrant?

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Health.

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

The question about the allocation in the budget: What was previously allocated last year was in the budget, but as my colleague would know, this year we already identified another amount to the tune of $2.6 to $2.7 million for rural physician bonuses, which was taken out of the contingency fund which will be added in as a baseline item for next year.

In terms of what was allocated: The budget allocation made for this year's budget was made on the premise of what we were already allocating. Since that allocation, we have made an announcement as an outcome of the rural health forum that we will be putting in $2.6 or $2.7 million for rural physician bonuses and $2.6 or $2.7 million for emergency room physicians to a total of $5.3 million. So, there will be an additional $2.6 million allocated as a baseline budget for those new bonuses that were put in place.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The estimates do not really show, do not do a breakdown; they just show grants and subsidies in general and fees paid out to salaried physicians. Sometimes it is kind of difficult to know exactly what the breakdown is, but there will be a line, I gather you are saying, in the future; that rather then just lump the total salaries in - that is 3.3.02 in the Estimates there, referenced here in the warrant - there will be a separate item to show that, to break that down, what is paid out in bonuses next year, rather then have it lumped in with the total salaries. Would I be correct in saying that?

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said. What I said was there would be an addition to the base budget, based on the fact that we added an extra $2.6 million to the budget this year; and that would be reflected. Because as you know, we had a set budget and we have since added close to $30 million to our base budget for health, with the $20 million stabilization; and you add in the rural physician bonuses, you add in the emergency room physicians and other items. So, that will be reflected in the budget next year. When you consider that we allocate money to each of our boards and they allocate based on the number of physicians, they would make those allocations based on the budget they submit to us and we would allocate a certain amount of money based on what we see as the regional needs for physician. That again would have to be broken down into salary, fee for service and other contractual arrangements.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I would be safe in saying, then, that it would still stay as it is, just be built into the same line item on the budget. This year, I think the minister mentioned, we would dip into the contingency reserve fund for a certain amount. I guess, if there is not a sufficient amount within the funds by year end, we will have to see another warrant, probably by next March, if we get in the position. I guess, at this point in time, we know how many physicians are there and we know how long they are there, we can pretty well air mark exactly what is going to be needed this year; because anyone new coming into the system is not going to be qualifying for bonus anyway. So, it is really being allocated now out of a contingency reserve fund, what is needed for this fiscal year right now.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

The comment I will make is that, in terms of a special warrant, this particular amount of money was taken out of the contingency fund, but if you factor in for next year, the change in the ceiling of the CHST rising from $11.1 billion to $12.5 billion, that will provide part of the allocation needed for the changes that have been made. In terms of knowing exactly the number of physicians, I think you need to keep a couple of things in mind. I do not know the exact date of starting of each of the physicians, and when they will actually click in for an additional bonus, because some of them now will have additional bonuses added on because of the different geographical areas, as I have already outlined. They are increased from what they previously were. In addition to that, some of the physicians may qualify and the boards themselves may actually come up with some other arrangements. So, that will depend on the budget they put forward to us for physician services, keeping in mind we are about to enter into negotiations with physicians.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to state one point: That actually the floor hasn't been raised from $11.1 billion to $12.5 billion. It was already $12.5 billion. It just isn't going to be lowered any farther. We still do not have any more dollars in the pot under CHST than we had last year. The intent over the next three years, I believe, is to reduce it to around $11 billion. We have only frozen it at last year's levels, so there are no new windfalls of money coming into this Province under CHST.

In fact, there are no new dollars going into the whole federal pot for CHST, according to the statement that was made in the last election campaign, and since. I haven't heard anything to say it is going to increase.

I would just ask the minister: The $2.5 million there for furnishings and equipment, I know that was given to different health care corporations around the Province. Does the minister have a breakdown of the extra requirements that were needed? Basically, could it be, for instance, the Burin Peninsula; the Peninsula's Health Care Corporation, I should say, or extra monies to fix hundreds of pieces of equipment that weren't working, or any capital purchases for much needed equipment? Does she have a breakdown to show us what these extra financial requirements were?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health.

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

I will provide a breakdown. I don't have the breakdown for the actual allocation of each of the amounts of capital, but that is certainly available, and I can certainly table it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate that, Minister. I will be looking forward to get a copy.

There is one other special warrant. I think it is for the arrest of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, this one, $32.8 million. Maybe it should be, I should say. Maybe it should be a warrant for the arrest of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, to look for $32.8 million, all in one fell swoop.

We can see he has provided, under teaching services, and he did mention that, that we had so much money last year, we had such a fantastic year, they decided to pay, out of last year, that extra pay day of $16 million on teachers' services. Thank God we did that, because we have seen enough cutbacks and lay offs of teachers in this Province now, that we can get another $16 million, whether you pay it in advance. It is great to be able to do it.

Under buildings and equipping schools, debt expenses, to remove operating liability, I think the minister said - the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is not here on this one. The Minister of Education is up doing yeoman service on behalf of this Province, I understand. What I will do with this one, in case any of the other ministers don't have a response, I will probably ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board when he returns, leave this one for then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I'm interested in hearing the response. Since I got a response to the rest of them, it would be a pity not to –

MR. TULK: Well, why don't you just ask the question?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is what I will do. If not, I will ask him again tomorrow. This won't be dealt with today. I'm sure members are ready to jump up and down with a lot of questions and concerns.

Building and equipping schools, the breakdown of the $9 million that was spent there: I think it was spent in liabilities, I believe, that boards had when they took over. That was part of the money that was used, the $25 million, was it, they used to pay off school board debt?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but it is part of it, probably; I'm not sure. That is what I'm asking. So this was a capital expenditure. I'm sure the school board debt, partially, was a capital and an operating cost, some of that debt that was run up. It says: grants and subsidies. This one I think the minister indicated in his notes - he said, it is to purchase computers and so on. We can't certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I'm satisfied with that one, $2.5 million. That is to purchase computers for schools in the Province. That is an investment in our future. We will get a return on that, I'm sure, down the road. We are all very eager to see money invested in education, because any investment gets dividends. If we don't invest in our youth we aren't going to get a dividend.

Memorial University of Newfoundland, various buildings, grants and subsidies, $5.3 million. Oh yes, the minister mentioned, too, that that was the Opportunities fund where we are matching dollar for dollar, $5.3 million. So I am sure the government has in their back pockets somewhere that extra $20 million. They are supposed to raise what, $50 million?

MR. TULK: I tell you, if John can find us (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Listen here, just to get the Minister of Finance to reach back, I am sure John will try extra hard. He found it for Hibernia. He found it for that - if anybody should be up on the platform yesterday when that first oil was pumped ashore it should have been John Crosbie because without John Crosbie it would not be pumped ashore, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He had faith -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I remember when you fellows were opposed to it.

MR. SULLIVAN: He not only had faith in this project -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) needed John Crosbie (inaudible) Marshall.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh you had John Crosbie, and you needed him, I tell you. When they were talking about scuttling Hibernia, when they talked about it as a make-work project, how it could not recover its costs, and now there are people in the Liberal Government in Ottawa talking about: why sell our share? Why sell it? Now we are going to get a return on it. The money, the foresight, that insight, that intuitiveness that John Crosbie had envisioned for this Province, I can tell you, and Jean Chrétien thought it was a make-work project. He did not want to hear tell of it.

MR. J. BYRNE: What did the Premier say about it?

MR. H. HODDER: And Clyde Wells said, equal to two fish plants.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier! It is only two fish plants. He forgot to tell us whether they were two closed ones or two that were opened. That is the only difference he did not tell us.

MR. TULK: I heard John is (inaudible) anyway so don't go worrying about it.

MR. SULLIVAN: John, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. I never worry about things like that. I am a realist. Yes, grin away. You are half afraid. If I were you over there I would be pretty worried about who you have sitting in your leader's chair. I am telling you, as fast as he got you up there he is going to get you down a lot faster, I can tell you. You had better cut him lose pretty soon and send him on his merry way up to Ottawa or you are going to have major problems, I can tell you, on that side of the House. Beaton Tulk would lead this side to victory the next time, if you keep that Premier over there - the hon. Government House Leader, Beaton Tulk.

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, listen, I have to correct that. The Government House Leader - no, there is not a prayer, not a ghost of a chance for the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got carried away, `Loyola'.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, we all do that at times but being able to get back to the business at hand is what distinguishes ordinary people from extraordinary people, I say to him.

Now I would like to know what buildings and what equipment was used in their debt expenses? Which debts did they write off? Give us a list.

MR. TULK: Which one?

MR. SULLIVAN: The $9 million, the breakdown.

MR. TULK: Oh that $9 million under the school board?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: When are they going to come up with a few dollars to get a school down in Pouch Cove? They are busing people -

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get on to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the $2.5 million is for computers, don't worry about that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, just a breakdown, that is all.

Yes, a school down in Pouch Cove, busing people by there into St. John's. To have a school in the area would regionalize the school there and keep people down in their own area - a shorter distance to school and kids not having to spend as long on buses. That would immensely help the area there. We hope the construction board has the foresight and the wisdom to be able to make a proper decision there. That is what we need to be doing. We need to be making long-range plans. It is a growing area of the Province, increased in population. We have to look at building for the future, not building for the present or building for the past. That is one of the pitfalls this government falls into too often. They make plans for the present and by the time they get around to it, the present is so far into the past, we are wasting dollars. So it is important that this government get their act together instead of looking - the minister, the audacity to go out $75.7 million in Special Warrants, probably unprecedented, I would imagine.

MR. TULK: No, I was there when Brian Peckford got $138 million one year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Brian Tobin?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, well, I was not here then.

AN HON. MEMBER: We would not condone that stuff.

MR. SULLIVAN: We would not do that, no way. These people on this side of the House would never go along with anything like that. We are responsible -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How old are you?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't profess to be that old. Anybody who has been here since 1984, I would say, should start thinking about retiring and getting out of here. That is what I would say, anybody around since then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I thought, in Question Period today, he might be getting ready to retire.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to tell the hon. gentleman that the thought does cross my mind occasionally but I have seen a lot of leaders on both sides of the House go and come, and I think I am going to see another Leader of the Opposition gone before I leave.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the minister, I do not want my mark in the House of Assembly to be longevity. I do not want it to be longevity. I never said I am going to be around here longer than anyone else, and I do not intend to. I do not want to be as round - around - as long as - I didn't say `as round', did I? I do not want to around as long as the Government House Leader, I can tell you that. He has been around too long.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will turn grey by then.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I will be turned grey by the time I am around as long as the Government House Leader.

I am sure my colleagues are very eager to discuss - I could go on and on for days dealing with the fiscal mismanagement of this Province, the dilemmas we are facing in education and health care and social programs in the Province, the lack of a vision on resource development, and numerous other areas, but I do not want to hog the time. All of my colleagues here, I want them to get up now and tell the Government House Leader and the members exactly what this government is doing, and the pitfalls they are carrying us into here in this Province.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down for a few minutes. It was only supposed to be ten minutes. I apologize for taking forty minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I will be back.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet yesterday afternoon. This is a financial bill, Bill 28, and there are some large amounts of money that the government wishes to spend and has spent, actually, I suppose - they want approval for it now - but this is a financial bill so I think the latitude is quite wide with respect to what you can or cannot speak on.

Yesterday afternoon I was on my feet here, after listening to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation introduce a bill, Bill 10, on the ecological and wilderness areas. After almost six months that the House has been closed, this government came back with no legislation prepared for the first day of the opening of the House of Assembly, and the minister was on her feet for fifty minutes, from 4:07, I believe, until 4:57 yesterday afternoon, talking about a bill on the ecological reserves within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the potential for ecological reserves and wilderness areas.

I thought, at the time, that was quite pathetic, to think that a minister would stand on her feet for fifty minutes introducing a bill of that nature - although it may be important in the overall scheme of things; but to be introducing a bill of that nature after the House of Assembly being closed for five-and-a-half months, I thought, gave us some indication of the priorities of this Administration.

We have now in this Province, of course, many, many issues that are - how will I put it to you? - much more important, I suppose, than the bill that was introduced by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation yesterday afternoon. But she did say when she was on her feet, that she had all of the facts on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, she did not have the facts with respect to Lakeside Homes in Gander when they decided to close down the kitchen out there and pretty well starve the seniors of this Province, the people who put this Province where it is today, who came up through the hard times, the 1930s and the 1940s when times were pretty hard in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then we entered Confederation in 1949 and we saw Newfoundland develop somewhat.

Only, though, just the same, we never did meet near the potential that Newfoundland and Labrador could have met in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, because of the nature, I suppose, of the politicians at that time. We had some good politicians, we had some bad politicians, and we saw some endeavours undertaken within this Province with respect to Churchill Falls. All our natural resources given away and what have you over the years, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did not benefit from it.

What do we see now? We saw Lakeside Homes, the seniors in Gander, being pretty well - I will not say starved to death, but when I saw some of the food on television that was being poured out of big plastic garbage containers, poured in like you would feed the swill to the pigs, that was a bit much. I felt for the people out there. Thank God, we had the Member for Conception Bay South who led the charge on that. Finally, we saw the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, after a number of calls, by the way, by the Member for Conception Bay South, asking where was the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on this, where was the Member for Gander?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the minister of (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get into that now in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: So what? Never called the minister? Which minister am I talking about? She was hiding away. Did you read the article in the paper today or yesterday from Russell Wangersky talking about the ministers hiding away? That is what we are up against, Mr. Chairman. That is what the public in this Province are up against.

Anyway, we saw the minister come forward and finally speak up when she was going to try to do something. Eventually we did, mainly through the effort -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Health is over there now asking what this has to do with this bill. The minister knows, or should know by now, that when we are up speaking on a finance bill there is wide latitude. Of course, this is certainly pertaining to the expenditures of money, because we are looking at for $75 million here now ... The Premier - I cannot get going like the Premier. I cannot put on a performance like that, like the Premier, and then sit down and smile. I can't do that. He gets going. I will tell you what the Premier does. He will get up and he will start off nice and meek and mild, and he will start talking about: Well now, Mr. Chairman, we can -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I tell you, just take it easy now, and I will give you a good performance. Maybe. I will never be able to match the Premier, won't be able to match the Premier on this, I can guarantee you that.

He will start out quite meek and mild, and then he will go and then he will start talking, with one hand raised, then he will speak like this, and then he will raise his voice a little bit. Then he will go on, raising the two hands; then he will start yelling and bawling and screeching and doing the whole kit-and-caboodle. That is what he will do. Then he will sit down and smile, and put on the big performance for the media up in the galleries. He will put on a big performance, trying to indicate to the people of the Province that he is quite serious about what he is talking about. But he sits down and smiles, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, with respect to the situation in Lakeside Homes, again, finally the people out there will get their kitchens. I do believe now that the government is considering putting kitchens back in all the homes across the Province, and rightly so. They should not have lost them in the first place.

With respect to this bill, I am going to speak to what is going on in this Province today. We have a show on CBC all this week - I have actually missed one or two - talking about out-migration in this Province. We see an out-migration in this Province such as was never seen before. I think during the time of the potato famine in Ireland we saw thousands of people coming to this country, to the new country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that when the Byrnes came over?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is when the Byrnes came over, yes. We came over and settled in Upper Island Cove. That is where my family comes from, Ireland. Anyway, thousands of people settled in this country,. Now we see it happening again today in this Province. We see a few members on that side of the House making notes now on some of the things I am saying, so hopefully they will get up and speak to them.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I spoke on this very issue about four years ago. I went on the show, the free political broadcast time on one of the stations - I should not get into that I suppose, which station, but anyway - and I spoke about what was going to happen in this Province. And I remember the former Premier saying that what I was bringing forward at the time was not accurate and would not happen, Mr. Chairman. Today we see a massive out-migration in this Province never before matched and it is very serious.

MR. WISEMAN: Do you know what the out-migration in Quebec was at the same time period?

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you living in Quebec or Newfoundland? Who are you elected to represent, the people in Quebec or the people in Newfoundland and Labrador? I think you are elected to represent the people in Topsail, are you not? Do you represent Topsail?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not care. That is not my concern, my concern is to represent the people in my district first and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador overall. That is my concern, and when the people on that side of the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: - sit back and realize what is happening in this Province today, they may start doing something about it.

The member here for Baie Verte, spoke today and asked questions of the minister responsible for rural development in Newfoundland and Labrador and it appears to me that this minister took over from the previous minister, who was a new minister, it was a new department and we did not expect a lot to happen overnight. It has been some year-and-a-half gone since then, and the present minister has no idea of what is going on in rural Newfoundland today. They are doing nothing to stop the out-migration, there is nothing being done, not from what I can see. We see U-Haul vehicles every day going across this Island, lining up to get on the ferry in Port aux Basques, families going away. I believe the member for Baie Verte told me there were twenty-seven families moved away in one community - twenty-seven families moved away.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, we hope. The member for Bellevue said they are all going to Bellevue to work and I wish you were correct in that statement, but the facts show that the people are leaving the Province. And there are some out there working, gladly, but the problem is, there are not enough people working in this Province today, there are not nearly enough working. They are leaving in droves; they are taking their families with them and actually, a lot of people when they left before, there was always hope that they would return, but now the families are leaving with tears in their eyes. Leaving their mothers and their fathers and taking their grandchildren and going off to B.C., Alberta, and wherever, because there are no programs in place to keep those people here.

Now, this is not a minor problem. I can understand that there would be problems with the government to try to stimulate the economy to keep those people here, but this Administration was first elected or the Liberals were first elected in 1989. Now, it is only a couple of months and we are into 1998, ten years almost, and there has been nothing done and all that we have seen is go, go, bye, bye, wave, wave, wave, wave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many left in 1988?

MR. J. BYRNE: How many left in 1988? Not as many as left in 1996, I can guarantee you that, nothing near it, but we saw in the last election the Premier making statements that we are going to have a better tomorrow and people had hopes built like you wouldn't believe and now their hopes are dashed and they are leaving here in carloads.

MR. SHELLEY: Twenty-five thousand since 1991.

MR. J. BYRNE: Twenty-five thousand people left, that is the difference, 25,000 since 1991.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Eighty-seven hundred.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not know, you tell me.

MR. J. BYRNE: See there he goes. He goes back in the past all the time - How many left in 1987-1988? How many left in 1947? How many left in 1957? The point is, this Administration is elected to represent the people, to create jobs, to stimulate the economy, to feed the poor, which they are doing a poor job of, by the way, and to help everybody in general, and they are not doing it.

MR. HODDER: It was a previous Liberal Government that had to pass a law in Newfoundland to try to prevent people from leaving - Sir Richard Squires.

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go, that is the way to do it.

MR. HARRIS: Sir Richard Squires, in 1923, passed a law that said, you cannot go to the United States.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now that is the type of solution that you would pass the law to prevent you from leaving, that this administration may come up with again.

The Minister of Health, a few minutes ago -

MR. H. HODDER: That was passed in 1923 (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want to get up?

MR. H. HODDER: No, no! You go ahead, you are doing very well.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Health, a few minutes ago said: What was the relevance, basically, of what I was speaking about? Now health care in this Province has been deteriorating for the past nine years. Over the past nine years health care in this Province has deteriorated, and I have personal experience because I have been in the Health Sciences Centre on a number of occasions over the past eight years. I could see the difference, Mr. Chairman, and it is because the funding is not there.

Even in the general cleanliness of the different organizations that I walk through - I visit people in the different hospitals, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, my mother-in-law is in hospital now and has been in there for the past three months, at the Health Sciences Centre.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) 6,000 people in this Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: The legal beagle from Topsail says in 1985-1986 -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Now the legal beagle from Topsail is over there quoting figures.

MR. WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is foolishness now he is getting on with.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail, on a point of order.

MR. WISEMAN: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis keep referring to members on this side of the House other than hon. member. Time and time again, Mr. Chairman, he has been warned about it. He continues to do it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, sit down!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the hon. member apologize?

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order.

CHAIR: There is no point of order. I have already ruled.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Now I am going to address that point that he brought up. The hon. Member for Topsail - I will say it once, don't expect to hear it too often. Six thousand people -

MR. WISEMAN: Six thousand people (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't repeat that, I won't repeat it. He is over there saying, in 1985-1986, 6,000 people left this Province. Now was that gross or net difference, or do you know the difference? Do you know the difference? There is a major, major difference.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: See, he does not know what he is talking about, as usual; sitting in his seat, barking like a little beagle, not knowing what he is talking about, like the dog and the rabbit, like the dog going through the woods after the rabbit, does not have a clue what he is talking about; nothing. Sure, I can hold up a piece of paper too. What does that mean? Nothing!

Now, the out-migration in this Province: I was on health care and he went back to the out-migration. As usual, Mr. Chairman, I am on health care issue here now and he is on out-migration, something that I had dealt with. He is in the past as usual, and does not know what he is talking about.

Now health care in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Living in a fog.

MR. WISEMAN: You don't like the truth.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you hear that? Where are you from? Where are you from? Where is he from? Are you from Topsail? Well, I will tell you what you should do, Mr. Member. I should suggest what you can do. I think that you should move back to Topsail because I can guarantee you, by you sitting in this House, you are depriving Topsail of the village clown; so you should move back there right away.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will get on an issue that is very dear to me and that is concerning my district. It is a new school for the area to serve Pouch Cove, Flatrock and Bauline. In 1993 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am, I hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not. I am going to congratulate certain people now, if I were given the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, back in 1993 when I was first elected to this House, in May of '93, within a month I had contact with the people in Pouch Cove, Flatrock and Bauline, a concerned citizens committee basically; and I brought it up in this House of Assembly many times. They were looking for a new school - and it was needed back then, four or five years ago - a new school to serve Pouch Cove, Flatrock and Bauline. We have two schools now, St. Agnes and Pouch Cove Elementary, K-VI in both schools. We have children now leaving Pouch Cove to go to the school in Torbay, Grades VII and VIII, and then they have to go from that school into the high school for IX, X, XI and XII, so we were hoping to get a new school down there. The buildings are old; there is no doubt about that.

The very first time I had a meeting with the committee - I had public meetings in Pouch Cove Elementary, a public meeting in St. Agnes. I met with the DEC, the CEC, the Avalon Board, the RC Board, whoever, everyone. We had numerous meetings, and we all agreed that the new school would go there. There was $175,000 allocated for design and site selection. There was some $30,000 to $40,000 spent on a new site selection. A committee was put in place. Engineers went in and looked at ten different sites and recommendations were made. When the education reform came up with the previous Premier, everything that he was looking for, everything that was being looked for, was already a prime opportunity to show how it could work.

Our busing situation would have been clarified, where students leaving Pouch Cove, Bauline and Flatrock would be bused to either Torbay or St. John's. That would have been handled, because if this new school was built then students attending a high school in St. John's would now attend a high school in Torbay. The students in Torbay who attend Grade VIII and IX would go to the new school in Pouch Cove or Flatrock, wherever it was situated, which would be K-VIII and not K-VI, so it would have made space in those schools; so the cost of busing would have been down. There would have been shared services, which is what the previous administration was looking for, what this present administration was looking for in the last referendum. This was all done; the money was spent for site selection. When we had the last referendum, over $100,000 that was left for design was taken back in general funds and we lost it. Then we had to go to various people in government and try to get that money re-established or re-allocated back to the Avalon East Board.

The next problem that came to us was: Okay, now you have to have a priority one again. It was already priority one from the previous boards, so now we had the new board last summer, or last spring, and we had to go to the board and try to get that to be priority one for the Avalon East Board, the biggest board on the Island, representing the largest number of students and people. It became priority one again, and they made it priority one for this year. I won't get into the politics of it, but this year, when the budget came down, there were so many millions of dollars - I can't remember now - $35 million or whatever the case may be, all spent, and not one cent allocated for this new school in Pouch Cove.

Everybody agreed upon it. The Minister of Education, we had meetings with him. Everybody who needed to be met with the committee met with, and everybody suggested: Jack, it has to be done; we will have it there. As a matter of fact, I had a commitment from someone - I won't say who, but pretty high up - that it would be done this year; didn't get it. I had meetings on Regatta Day this summer with the Avalon Board and with different people, the construction board, to see if we could get funding for it.

I know that there is money still left over, a few million dollars, and there are two schools competing for it, from what I can understand, mine and another one; I won't say where. So we had meetings again and I suggested that we do it over a two-year term, put some money aside to start the site selection and engineering drawings this year, and next year we would start construction. Everybody agrees, good idea, but we still don't have the money.

On November 6, from what I can understand - we are talking money here now in education with respect to this bill. The project, actually, is only about $2 million to $3 million for a new school in that area to service Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Bauline, from K-VIII. It would alleviate the problem of the numbers of students in Holy Trinity High School in Torbay. It would affect schools in St. John's. It would cut back on the busing, so everything has been met.

On November 6 the construction board met again. I assumed and thought for sure that we would get the financing to go ahead. I haven't got the official report from the last meeting of the construction board, Mr. Chairman, but I'm hearing good things; I'm getting certain vibes. I can't say for sure; they may only be rumours. I'm telling you right now, if we do not get the funding for that school in that area this year, and the completion of the funding in the following year, there are going to be some upset people in that district, and rightly so.

We have the people in the area, we have this Administration, promoting the shared services, people pulling together, communities coming together, and what have you, and we have it right in our hands to do it, and to show what can happen when people agree to do these things. We now have Term 17 being discussed in the House, a committee in place to discuss it and see what should happen; if it should be passed through the House of Commons and the Senate; the education reform, which was very divisive, by the way, the education referendum that was held September 2. It was very divisive.

Again I have to question the necessity for that, but the Premier certainly felt it was necessary. The people in my district voted in favour, so of course in the House of Assembly in July -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I didn't realize he was behind me. In the meantime, I certainly look forward to a new school in that area. I think, to be fair to the Avalon East Board which serves the majority of the –

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo says that (inaudible) New World Island. I won't get into the actual locations where the money was spent this year, the millions of dollars and where it all went. I'm trying to stay away from that the best I can. I don't want to get too many people on that side of the House upset because I will never get the funding for the new school, I say, Mr. Chairman. Anyway, enough said on that for now, until such time that we hear the hopefully positive results from the meeting of the new construction board held on November 6.

The bill that we are here discussing today -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader said I'm making a great speech. I'm glad to see he is paying attention.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I think he does, actually. I think the Government House Leader is always paying attention. Sometimes you wonder if he is or not, but he perks up every now and then and makes a comment, and you understand that he is listening half the time.

Anyway, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was on his feet today introducing Bill 28. He got up and made a very quick introduction of the bill, sat down, and then the Leader of the Opposition was on his feet and asked a number of questions to the minister. He answered the questions, as he normally does. I certainly wasn't satisfied with the answer to the question he gave here yesterday in the House of Assembly, with the questions I asked the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I asked him questions with respect to the changes in the legislation to the retail sales tax act concerning the re-sale of used vehicles.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would be satisfied if he got up in his place and said: We are not going to do that, we are going to withdraw it. I would be satisfied if he was going to do that. I don't agree that the people in this Province should be all tarred with the same brush. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and this Administration are saying that everybody in this Province is dishonest. That is what they are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tarred with the same brush.

MR. J. BYRNE: With the same brush.

AN HON. MEMBER: Use a different brush.

MR. J. BYRNE: Depends on what colour too. I have received a number of calls on that and I'm sure people on that side of the House have received them, if they are being honest, about the changes to the legislation of the retail sales tax concerning the re-sale of used vehicles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There we go. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will agree with me, he is getting hundreds. What about the Minister of Health? Did the Minister of Health get any calls on this? Get any calls?

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't take any calls.

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't take calls. Do you take any calls?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who doesn't take a call?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Health. That is what he told me. I don't believe that. The Minister of Health is a former - I cannot say former nurse because she is probably still a nurse.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Who wants to tell you?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, the Minister of Health has received calls. The Member for Labrador West has received calls, hasn't he?

AN HON. MEMBER: About what?

MR. J. BYRNE: About the retail sales tax, changes about the vehicles.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You have not received a call on that? I find that hard to believe, because I get more calls on this -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You will, boy, you should take a break.

MR. TULK: No, I am not taking a break (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The people out there are so concerned about this. I had an individual phone me today - pardon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Concerned about me?

MR. J. BYRNE: You? I don't think so. I am, I am concerned about you, and I will tell you why. I am concerned about your health.

MR. TULK: Are you?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am. I saw you today, over in that chair, when there was a question asked, your blood pressure, and your face red.

MR. TULK: The Premier used to be like that.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can see the Premier being like it because he carries the load. All you guys over there are on his coat-tails. Today, your blood pressure when up too fast to be healthy, and you should check with the nurse right here next to you and get your blood pressure taken. I tell you it is not good. We do not want to have to call the ambulance in here to you.

MR. TULK: Lug me out.

MR. J. BYRNE: Lug you out. Okay, we can do that too. I do not know if we will be able to do that, we will have to tow you out.

MR. SHELLEY: Have to get a come-a-long.

MR. J. BYRNE: Have to get a come-a-long, is right.

MR. TULK: You would want all the opposition to carry me.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance introduced this bill today and he answered a number of questions, and I do not want to repeat them. I made some notes when he was introducing this bill. My problem is that members on our staff, and we do have a few - not as many as the government opposite.

MR. SHELLEY: The (inaudible) is gone right through the roof.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, do we, okay. Well we have members on our staff who contacted the Department of Finance to get the breakdown on this information. We are talking about spending $75 million on the Consolidated Fund Services, Finance, Development, Education, Health and what have you; and it was refused. They would not give us the breakdown. It is okay to come and say you want $10 million for the Consolidated Fund Services.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Why? It is public information when you are spending public money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not asking here. The minister - I cannot say that. You cannot say the minister is not here, right?

MR. SHELLEY: No, do not say that.

MR. J. BYRNE: You cannot say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not say the minister is not here.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, we have asked questions and we have asked for a breakdown on this specifically, what that $10 million was spent on, the breakdown.

MR. TULK: What $10 million?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Consolidated Fund Services - finance - $12 million.

MR. TULK: Special Warrants to provide funds for the voluntary departure program. It is all (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, we asked for the breakdown on that. That is $10 million. Where did it go? Who did it go to? So much went to the shipyard and farm products. I remember asking questions in the House and we did not get -

MR. TULK: Where was that?

MR. J. BYRNE: Where? Weren't you listening to the minister today when he was up introducing this bill?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am sorry. Well, when he introduced this bill today, he said on the second one there, finance, so much of it went for the shipyard and so much went to farm products.

MR. TULK: Oh, yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. We do not know how much went to each one, what is the breakdown, what it was going to be spent on. We do not know that. Another one here is development and rural renewal, debt load, municipalities. How much went to each municipality? What municipalities? Okay, get up and tell me which municipalities received the money and how much.

CHAIRMAN (Penney): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman first asked the question about the Consolidated Fund Services, the $10 million that was put in there. The hon. gentleman is aware, I am sure, that there was a voluntary departure program announced in the budget last spring and there were a number of people who volunteered and later retired, had reached a certain point in their service. Some of them brought back service; some of them did not have to buy back service. Some of them got severance pay. In order to make life easy for them, as this government is wont to do - I mean we do not want to throw people out in the streets with nothing - we put in place a voluntary departure program and said to the people: If there are certain conditions met, we will pay you a certain sum of money. On that we spent $10 million. That was what the Special Warrant is for.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who got it and how much?

MR. TULK: That is what the Special Warrant is for. Now, I do not think the hon. gentleman would want me to bring in here every person's name and put down that this person got this much and this person got that much. I do not think he wants me to do.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you know -

MR. TULK: I do not think he would.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not really.

MR. TULK: If he wants to know what the $10 million was spent for, that is what the Special Warrant was. It is not all gone yet, I don't think, but it is put there to provide funds for that volunteer departure program.

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

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

When the minister gets up to respond, he can tell us how much money is left.

With respect to that voluntary departure program, I have to really scrutinize and think about the word `voluntary'. From some of the people with whom I have discussed and talked about this program, and people went out the door to create -

AN HON. MEMBER: Pushed out the door.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pushed out the door is right. A lot of people did not voluntarily leave, I can guarantee you that. I can name some who felt they had no other choice but to go, because if they did not go, they were going to be done in the long haul.

AN HON. MEMBER: Going to be what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Going to be done, done in, because of the pension situation and what was going on in the pension programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want me to get some of the people to come in and have a chat with you and tell you about it? You should know. You never mentioned anything about the shipyard or Farm Products and the debt load of the municipalities. (Inaudible). What about the call centres, Development and Rural Renewal. So much I think went on the call centres there.

Education: I spoke on Education a while back. Hopefully I will get some money for that new school in Pouch Cove. I hope so.

Anyway, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, $4 million: Let me see here now.

MR. A. REID: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am just looking here, sizing up the situation. Take your time now.

There was $4 million under this bill, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Four million went to Municipal and Provincial Affairs. That is what I am asking you. Was it to help the municipalities pay down their debt in NLFM?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am only asking.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. TULK: Be nice to him (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: That was a number - I am not 100 per cent sure, but I asked the Minister of Finance the other day about that and he said that was $4 million for financing, refinancing bonds on the market. They come due every now and then and he has to put the money in.

MR. H. HODDER: How much are they paying down on these things?

MR. A. REID: I cannot tell you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You get up and ask the questions.

MR. A. REID: I will say, the $9 million - remember last year, the $14 million we took out of the MOG, and we took $9 of the $14 million -

MR. J. BYRNE: I know what that was for? Okay, you can sit down. I can tell you. The $4 million -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The $4 million was for the transitional fund for the fire department for the Cities of St. John's and Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I just know too much, I have too much in my head sometimes. Anyway, not enough hair.

Mr. Chairman, this $75 million: A lot of it has been spent; no doubt about that.

I think I am on my feet long enough now, Mr. Chairman, to allow someone else to get up. I would like to say, I really think that someone on that side of the House over there should get up and say a few words on these bills. I have always had problems with that. It seems as if the Opposition is in here, they question all the bills, but we very seldom get people on that side of the House up speaking on the bills.

I see one member moving over there. Maybe he will say a few words. Would anybody here like to say a few words? I am going to sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am gone, boy. My throat is gone.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I just want to rise and have a few words on the general categories we are talking about here. It would have been helpful earlier in the day, in particular, if we had had some of the additional information that is coming forward now because we could have been better prepared to address these issues in the House today.

I do have some difficulty, when we look at Bill No. 28 and we see the general reading of the bill, which is standard. Then we have a one page, seven-line schedule. Of course that is the difficulty, when you know that you are being asked to debate something in an afternoon session and at the time that the House opens you have no information whatsoever. So earlier in the day I had instructed our research staff - we would ask them to go and try to find some information. With the help of some members in the civil service we were able to find the various warrants. We then went and asked the hon. Minister of Finance's department if they could give us some further breakdowns on some of the data. I was quite surprised to find that, yes, the information was available but that the Minister of Finance said, no, he was not willing to share the data with the House. So as a consequence, we come to the House this afternoon with the need for additional information, finding ourselves in the middle of the discussion here on the expenditure of $75,700,000, that the minister who was most directly responsible is not available to answer questions in the House. We know that that might be a problem for the government, but it is also a problem for the people in this Province.

We, in the Opposition - again, before you ask questions to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs relative to the expenditures there for his department, there is $4 million there for municipal and provincial affairs. He has just answered that but I am wondering if the same minister, my good colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, would like to address the expenditure under the category of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation? I find that he is otherwise engaged at the moment but maybe when he gets an opportunity he might be able to stand in his place and explain the category. I am talking to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to see if he could speak to the category of $3,400,000 under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and, more particularly, what that particular expenditure is for under the schedule that is attached to Bill No. 28. Maybe when he gets an opportunity, in a moment, he might want to do that so we could all have an opportunity for the public to know exactly what these expenditures mean.

Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to talk about some of the other issues. My colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, mentioned the situation in Pouch Cove, the school system. We don't see much coming forward from this government about real reform in education. We know that there are students in Deer Lake today who are out of class because they are saying: Where are the reforms? When is it going to help us? They are out of class because their teachers cannot get time to accompany them to various extracurricular activities and the tournaments and events that are associated with those activities.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to address the issue of the students over in Deer Lake. As a consequence, we know that these young people are asking a very basic question: When will educational reform be of benefit to them?

We hear the story of the need for student assistants. When you know that there were children, in this Province, who went to school for the first time three weeks ago, the first part of November, when two young children who live in Holyrood were able to attend class for the very first time this year; two months after school started they were able to go to school. They could not go because there was no provision made for them to be able to have the student assistants available to them. So when you have that kind of situation you have to ask yourself, where are the reforms and how are they going to be helpful to the young people of this Province?

My colleague, the Member for St. John's West, mentioned in the House a couple of days ago the issue of child poverty. We know that there are 75,000 people in this Province who have to look to the provincial Treasury for their assistance in being able to keep food on their tables, to keep their houses heated, and to be able to maintain some semblance of normality in their lifestyle. We know that 40,000 children go to school hungry every day. My colleague has asked, on several occasions, for somebody to address that issue. It has not happened.

We had the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture brave enough last spring in the House, to say, `We are hoping to do something about a school lunch program by this fall'. Then, when the autumn came, there was nothing by way of a school lunch program, no provision to expand the existing program, so we still have children going to school hungry.

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that while we come here to approve those expenditures, we also have certain realities, and the realities are human faces, they are children, they are adults, who are going without.

We have the situation with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, where people got their information saying, `We are sorry, but your rent is going up by 20 per cent'. Then we have the minister saying, `No, we are going to review that'. We don't want to have it reviewed; we want to have the thing cancelled. Cancel those 20 per cent increases in rents to the very poorest people in this Province. That would be the right thing to do. It would be the morally correct thing to do, not to say we are going to review rental increases to people who are getting by on the lowest incomes, people who can hardly make ends meet. Then we say to them: But this government - this caring government that they claim to be - are going to increase the rents from 25 per cent of gross income to 30 per cent of gross income.

When you have people on the phone who are crying and saying, `I don't know how I am going to be able to make ends meet...'. I had one lady, just last evening, call me at home and say, `I was working thirty hours a week. Now I just got my time put up to forty hours a week. Now I go into a new category. What is the use of my continuing to work? When I get a few extra hours, it is taken back by the government by way of a rental increase.'

With that kind of attitude by the government, grabbing from the people, from the very lowest income people in the Province, who have to struggle to make ends meet on the $6 an hour, the $5.25 an hour, and the $7 an hour incomes, we wonder where the consciousness is in the government, because while you might look at national standards and say, `Oh, yes, everybody else in Canada has it from 25 per cent to 30 per cent; we are one of the lowest', we in Newfoundland cannot measure the incomes of our people and compare them with Ontario. In spite of all the cutbacks that Ontario has had, for example, they are still a long way better off than many of the people in this Province, so we cannot compare the two. We have a government; we have ministers who say, `Okay, you know, our people can put up with that'.

We see the gouging that just occurred, or was announced a few days ago, by the way we are changing the taxation that applies to people who sell the used cars. That is nothing more than a way to make people pay taxes not only on what they pay for a vehicle, but they are paying taxes on what they don't pay as well. Again, who gets hurt? It is not the people who can buy new cars; they won't matter. It is not the people who are going to be able to go out to a dealer, because the dealer can sell below the book value and you still pay the same taxes on the cost that you pay. But if you go out and make a private arrangement, you try to do the thing that saves you the most money, then you are told: Oh, no, it doesn't matter. There is no provision here for any exemptions, no provision here for anything at all. We are just going to make the assumption that everybody is telling lies. Everybody is out there and we are going to punish the good for the problems of the people who might misuse the system and some people say that they have misused the system. So we are not going to look after the straightforward honest person, we are just going to punish everybody, and that is a new way of doing things, even for this government. So, Mr. Chairman, there are many other issues.

We have had our colleague, the Member for Bonavista South talk about the issues in his district and we know that he is one of those members, of all the people in this House, who knows his district better probably than many of the rest of us. In his particular case, we know that he is an aggressive member and stands up for his people, and we have heard him talk about the issues that affect his district from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, we know that people are really hurting in this Province. I do not see much in this particular expenditure here that is going to help out the ordinary people, the rank and file or as Steve Neary would call them, the raggedy-arse artillery, as he would say to them. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about the fact that we are spending a lot of money but we also have a lot of need out there. I spent some time, in the last few weeks, driving around parts of this Province, from the Burin Peninsula to the Baie Verte Peninsula, to the Bonavista Peninsula looking at the number of houses boarded up. We have a situation now, for example, where if somebody happens to leave a community, they take their house, they board it up, but the municipality still has to pay the $400 in water and sewer charges for that house even though nobody lives in it. The people may be gone away to Alberta but the municipality still has to pay that $400. Is that a fair thing to impose on municipalities? Obviously, it is not but this government says, `Oh, no, that is fine. Let us gouge and tax wherever we can. Let us not have a conscience. Let us not try to make things better for people.' This government is giving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians every reason they can to leave Newfoundland. They are giving them more reasons. Now they are saying we want to kind of push you out.

A few months ago, Ray Guy, in a column in The Evening Telegram, talked about resettlement. He said that he was around in the 1960s when at least in Joey Smallwood's day he called it what it was; but we now have a deliberate strategy to force people to leave rural parts of this Province - in some cases, not even what we would call the rural parts of the Province, but some of the more established and vibrant towns. We are trying to find new reasons to indirectly force people to leave and that is happening every day. We are losing some of our brightest, some of our best. We are losing an entire next generation, you might say. We do not find many people in this Province, in this government in particular, standing up for these people who just cannot make things go in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak on some of the other rural issues. We know that we have real significant difficulties out there. We know that the ministers and the Premier know what is wrong in rural Newfoundland. We hope they have a conscience but when we see things happening like is happening with the taxes on the sale of cars, we see what is happening when we look at the fact that we do not have a small schools policy put in place yet. We heard the minister say yesterday, don't rush to a conclusion, but if you were a teacher in rural Newfoundland or you were a parent in rural Newfoundland, you would have to be very, very concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the Government House Leader that this side over here, we did not get a chance to go to the sessions that were paid for by the taxpayers last year when all Cabinet ministers got their in-service about how to wave your arms and how to make those wonderful gestures that get all kinds of attention. But, you know, we stayed away from that because we are very conscious - and we were not allocated any funds for that kind of training, only Cabinet Ministers were invited to go to those kinds of sessions; that is their priority, that is the way they want to spend their money. They do not want to spend it to help out the poor in the Province, they want to spend it to try to make the Cabinet ministers look better. Of course, we know the challenge that represents for some of them, because we know that all the practice they will have, they will never ever make certain ministers look good anyway, and with all the training some of them had over the last numbers of years, they continue to make the same mistakes, they continue to bash the poor, step down on the little fellow. And, of course, they have no conscience.

Mr. Chairman, many people on this side of the House want to get up and have a chance to speak before the afternoon session is out and I will yield to my colleague, I think, my colleague, the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, boy, pay attention, because I am going to refer to as many of you as possible. So pay attention, you never know when your name is up, okay?

MR. TULK: I tell you, if I were over there you would get my support.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you. Well, sure, come on over.

Anyway, I am holding here, Bill 28, obviously, some money that has been spent and I would like to get some assurance today that this government will get its priorities in order and spend money where it is needed most.

Mr. Chairman, every day I am inundated with calls both from the residents of St. John's West -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible), come over here (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Alright, you go around and take it up `Beaton', you are Chairman of Finance, okay?

Every day I get calls both from residents of the District of St. John's West and people from all over the Province. Our people have no jobs; they are leaving this Province in droves. Our people are hungry; 40,000 children go to school every day with not enough food in their bodies. This is not important, is it? It is not important to talk about hungry children, it is not important to listen about hungry children who go to school, not only without nutritious food, but no food.

This government has been asked time and time again to implement a school lunch program. They have turned a deaf ear and some of them are not paying attention now while I speak about hungry children. Will a school lunch program be included in the government's immediate plans?

Now, I was at a woman's health care forum three or four weeks ago. At that forum, the Minister of Health threw out a challenge to the people who were present. She said: I want you to think Prevention - not Hospitalization, think prevention. If you are a mother and you are sending children to school hungry, from a cold house because you do not have enough money for fuel, you are suffering stress.

People who suffer stress, Mr. Chairman, get physically sick. People who get physically sick end up in hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, absolutely, former Minister of Health, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I am listening to my constituents very carefully.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am very grateful, and I hope that you, as well as the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, will go to Cabinet and preach that prevention, so that mothers will not be sending their children to school hungry from cold houses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I will keep the logic flowing. Because the Patricia Canning report and the Williams Royal Commission report said that hungry children do not learn well. What is it, the mandate of the government to keep people perpetually uneducated, cold, and hungry? Is that what your mandate is?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is right. Speaking of sickness and health care, there is a woman living in my district, she called me a couple of weeks ago. She is worried to death about her mother who has a bad heart. This lady is waiting for other surgery that cannot be performed until after the heart surgery. She has been on the list for six months. How much longer are you going to leave her there? Are you going to rectify this emergency situation so our residents will not be living not only in pain and anguish, but in fear for their very lives?

Our seniors, who have contributed so much to the fibre of this Province, and they lived through hard times, and in many cases living below the poverty line - many of them are living in seniors' homes. They have taken up residence in these homes so they can spend their golden years. They have trusted the government to take care of them in their golden years. What does this government do? Reduce these seniors to begging for a decent meal. Will this government assure us that they will spend the money wisely so these people will not have to beg again?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: They will not. No, they are not paying any attention at all, are they?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is good, okay.

In September the people of this Province gave the government overwhelming approval to reform the education system, but at that time they were given the impression that savings would be put back into education. We are cutting teachers and we are cutting programs. We are threatening music programs, theatre art programs, and physical education programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closing schools.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, closing schools.

AN HON. MEMBER: What fool did that?

MS S. OSBORNE: What fool did that? I don't know; I am looking at a whole bunch of them. You figure out who was responsible. I can go eenie, meanie, miney, moe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: You have it figured out? Okay.

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Not a chance. Do you not think that the children of this Province deserve the same quality education as their counterparts in the rest of Canada?

MR. T. OSBORNE: `Sheila', don't listen to him.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I am not listening to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: No coaching Mommy, `Tommy'.

MS S. OSBORNE: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: No coaching Mommy.

MS S. OSBORNE: I tell you - you know something? Listen, I would rather take coaching from him than the whole lot of you guys over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: He has more sense than all of you. And do you know why he has more sense? The genes are perfect.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: In Gander -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: I have something for you. It's not a threat; it's a promise. I have four more sons.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The level of decorum in the House right now is totally unacceptable.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in Gander last weekend at the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities Conference, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said that the worst is yet to come.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not say that, `Sheila'.

MS S. OSBORNE: Didn't he? Okay, something like that.

There have been unprecedented cutbacks to the cities and towns of this Province, unbelievable downloading. We have towns in Newfoundland with sewer running in the ditches.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, yes. The municipalities have been cut so badly they cannot afford the cost of water and sewer. I suggest that the Minister of Health lobby Cabinet for funding to correct this dangerous health hazard, as a preventative measure, of course.

I just learned today that the RRAP program for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing had been halted. I have heard from several residents of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing over the past while, and I remember one very well. He is a senior citizen. He has been a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for about twenty-five years, and he asked me to check and see if the windows in his home would be replaced this year, as last year he complained that they were quite drafty and a little snow had been blowing in. I checked with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and was told that it was not in this year's budget. I called him back and told him the reply. I asked him if he would like me to check and see if perhaps there was another apartment or house he could move into. `No, my dear,' he replied, `this has been our home for over twenty years now. I'll just put some plastic over the windows and maybe they will fix them next year'.

Could this penurious government please have a look and think about these seniors. While you are in your nice cosy homes, think about the seniors living in homes where the RRAP Program has been cut and snow is blowing in.

CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. A. REID: I do not want the Province to take what the hon. member is saying as absolutely correct. The hon. member said that she heard or she has been informed that there is no RRAP Program; that is absolutely incorrect. There is a RRAP Program. I also say to the hon. member, that if she has somebody, like she is saying, who needs windows fixed, why does she not just pick up the phone and call me at my office or drop me a note, walk across the floor and say, `Art, can you have a look at this for me?' Because that is the way I operate, Mr. Chairman. I do not need that sort of stuff. Now, Mr. Chairman, do not leave the rest of the Province with the impression that there is not a RRAP Program. The RRAP Program for this year is finished, like it always finishes in November, and I am hoping and praying and I am working on getting another RRAP Program, a bigger and better one for next year, so do not leave the impression, and that is a point of order.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I do have a problem and I will take you up -

CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member for St. John's West speaking to the point of order?

MR. OLDFORD: No, well, all I have to say -

CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. member to take her seat. There is no point of order. The hon. member was expressing an opinion that she was of. The hon. minister took advantage of the opportunity to express also his opinion and correct the situation. There is no point of order.

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

MR. OSBORNE: I would just like to adjourn debate and I would advise the hon. minister that that man's name will be on his desk tomorrow. Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave, at some point, 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: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.