May 20, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 34


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome some special guests to our Assembly. We would especially like to welcome some students from West St. Modeste, Labrador, in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They are ten students who are in Level I, Level II and Level III, with their teacher Andrews Jones and their chaperones Lisa Jones, Ruby Fowler and Carla Fowler.

Certainly, all members would like to give them a warm welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We would like to welcome in the Speaker's gallery, Chief Misel Joe from the Conne River Indian Reserve. Welcome to our Assembly, Chief.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to rule on a point of order raised on May 19 by the Opposition House Leader relative to comments made by the Member for St. John's West on May 18. Since the Speaker was not in the Chair at the time of the alleged incident, the Chair deferred -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, she (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I want to make note of that.

The Chair deferred a ruling until consultations were held with the Deputy Speaker and others, including the member.

Subsequent to these consultations, the Member for St. John's West rose in her place and withdrew the comment. Therefore, issues raised in the point of order have been satisfactorily resolved.

The Chair does not have any notice of statements by members, but will call the heading in any case. Any statements by members? Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform members and the people of the Province of government's intent to enter into negotiations with the federal government and the Miawpukek First Nation to determine the terms and conditions for a land transfer agreement to expand the Conne River Reserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Conne River is one of the fastest growing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and with this growth comes a need for more land. I am pleased that the process of expanding the Conne River Reserve is proceeding so that the community has the space it needs to grow well into the future.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador made a commitment to reserve expansion in the recent Speech from the Throne, and we intend to move swiftly to conclude the land transfer agreement. This initiative is consistent with the government's objective to work in partnership with Aboriginal communities and the Government of Canada so that our Aboriginal people can realize their desire to become more self-reliant.

Mr. Speaker, as you did on behalf of all members, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Chief Misel Joe, leader of the Miawpukek First Nation, who has taken time out of his busy schedule to be in the House of Assembly today. I would also like to express congratulations and recognition to Chief Joe for receiving an Honourary Doctor of Laws degree at the recent convocation of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement and to say that we, on this side, fully agree. Mr. Speaker, when I became the minister last February, we began work with Chief Joe, certainly, to expand his reserve. There is no question that it is badly needed and we fully support it.

I, too, want to congratulate Chief Joe on his Honourary Doctor of Laws degree from Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, but also, Mr. Speaker, say that I hope some day that the rest of Canada will recognize Chief Joe for the tremendous work he has done in promoting the reserve at Conne River.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to congratulate Chief Joe on the tremendous work that he has done in the Province. His name is, indeed, a household word throughout our Province and he is highly recognized for the achievements that he has made on behalf of his people. There have been, in recent times, a lot of good stories that have come out Conne River area and you are to be commended for that, Sir.

I would also like to congratulate him on his Honourary Doctor of Laws degree from Sir Wilfred Grenfell College. That is quite an achievement; one, I am sure, that he, his family and friends are quite proud of him being bestowed with.

I would also like to point out, in closing, I would like to say Chief Joe, that his brother Eric and I have been very good, close, personal friends for more than thirty years now. Good luck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers? Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Premier expressed concern of incidents that are occurring on George Street in downtown St. John's. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, a concern to a lot of people in this Province. The Premier also stated that he has contacted the Mayor of St. John's and the Chief of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to discuss this serious issue. Mr. Speaker, the Aboriginal communities on the North Coast of Labrador are losing far too many of its young people, many through suicides. I ask the Premier: Will you also take extra measures as well, to try and help solve the serious problems facing the Aboriginal communities on the North Coast of Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. It is obviously an issue of very grave importance to the people of the Province and something that we are all very sensitive to and very very aware of. We have taken an initiative, of course, through the Budget to increase social workers in that particular area of the Province. As well, I can make a commitment to the member that if there are any particular matters he wants to discuss with me at any particular point in time, then he does have our commitment as a government to certainly pursue that very worthwhile situation. I must say, it is something that is of great sensitivity to all of us. As Premier of the Province, this particular incident on George Street, it drew attention - it has drawn public attention and we have reacted to it. I can certainly give you my commitment as Premier that any issues like that in your particular district, we will react in a similar manner and a very responsible manner.

Thank you again for that question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Premier, your government in its recent Budget cancelled funding for Aboriginal constables in Makkovik and Rigolet, granted your Justice Minister is giving full co-operation in trying to provide funding from the federal government and talks are encouraging. Premier, this all takes time. There is a federal election pending, and where the present funding from the Province for these Aboriginal constables expires in June of this year: Will your government extend this funding for an additional six months, at a cost of $70,000, so the communities will not lose these highly regarded and trained professionals until a permanent solution can be worked out?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Torngat Mountains for his question.

As he is aware, he and I have been in almost daily contact about this issue for the past couple of weeks. As I indicated to him yesterday privately, if the Inuit communities are prepared to provide me with correspondence that they are prepared to enter into a tripartite agreement involving the federal government, the provincial government and all of the Inuit Aboriginal communities, than I am prepared to take up with the Premier the view of interim funding to keep those offices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Again, Minister, I say to you, this all takes time and the present funding runs out the last of June, and with the federal election upcoming, it is going to take quite some time.

My final question is for the Premier. Since you became Premier you have travelled to different parts of this country and also to foreign countries trying to promote our Province. It is something that you have every right to do as Premier and leader of your government. However, if you are serious, and I am sure you are, in trying to help the Aboriginal communities on the North Coast of Labrador: Premier, will you commit at your convenience, and as soon as possible, to do a tour and see and hear from the people as to how we might work together to address some of the problems they face on the North Coast of Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I thank the hon. member for a very valid question, a very worthwhile suggestion, and I will make that commitment. I thank you for saying, at your convenience, as you realize time is of the essence. We have a lot of challenges before us, as a people and as a Province. But I will certainly do that and I understand that my minister already has a trip planned there herself. So it is certainly something that I will commit to do.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is reported in today's media that the Member for Terra Nova, a member on the government side of the House, is very upset with a decision of the government that he is part of, to close the HRE office in his district.

We have stated from day one that this government makes their decisions without consulting the public and without consulting even their own caucus. Again, during the Estimates Committee meeting for the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the minister stated that no cost analysis had been done for any of the closed offices. They had not been conducted, nor were any consultations held with the twenty affected communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Did she discuss the decision to close HRE offices with the caucus and with members, like the Member for Terra Nova, as she has previously stated? If so, why are government members, like the Member for Terra Nova, now stating that they knew nothing about the decisions and voicing their concerns publicly a full two months after the Budget has been tabled in this Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment was tasked to make some decisions in relation to the Budget. We had forty-six offices in the Province with a reduction, since 1997, of 9,000 cases. Plus, in addition to that, we no longer do home visits. Mr. Speaker, we had to respond to the changing demographics and the policies.

Mr. Speaker, I further add that any time any area loses any type of office, or employment is transferred, it is a serious issue for that district. I understand that myself, as my own district has lost an office in this whole process.

Mr. Speaker, when we did the consultation process and we made our Budget decisions, the caucus and the Cabinet were all notified, in a timely manner, of our decisions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, because words are important, I understand the answer to the question is that there was no consultation but there was a notification. They were notified in the public, like everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, the same member, the Member for Terra Nova, has also expressed his displeasure with the discontinuance of driver examination services in Gambo. Last evening at the Estimates Committee for the Department of Government Services, he also stated that he feared for public safety with the closure of the weigh scales in the Province.

I ask the Minister of Government Services, how can she claim she consulted with the caucus when they feel they must voice their concerns publicly in order to have them heard at all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is, of course, free to ask this question again directly to the minister, but I just want to make something very clear with all members on this side of the House. There are no gag orders on any of the members on this particular side of the House. In fact, they are quite free to speak as they see fit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They are there to represent their districts. If they take issue with decisions of this government, they are quite free to speak exactly as they feel. They are there to represent their districts and they are there to represent their constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You have to look at the reason for this action, Mr. Speaker. The reason, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier, in his right, is replying to the question, and I ask the Premier now if he would continue his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's put this in perspective, Mr. Speaker. The reason that these difficult, tough decisions had to be made is because of the mess that was left by the hon. people opposite, by the government of whom this Opposition Leader was then the leader, who laid off thousands of people, who rolled back wages, who had cutbacks. Then, the day after he was placed as leader of that particular party, he went on a spending spree to start doling out money to get re-elected, which was not successful, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the answer from the Minister of Government Services, acknowledging that she didn't consult with anybody either. If the Premier, the one-man show, Mr. Speaker, had waited, I have a question for him later. He will get a chance to answer in a minute or so.

Mr. Speaker, in the district-by-district breakdown, this now well-known and infamous document that came from the government with a few minimal mistakes, they are trying to suggest, in that breakdown of budget initiatives that we received under the Freedom of Information Act, the referenced cuts are listed for each and every district. The information was compiled by a division of the Department of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: Why are government members, two months after the Budget was decided upon, now stating, publicly, that they were unaware of the decisions that are in this document and unsupportive of the decisions and very concerned about the negative impact these decisions are having in their districts.

The direct question is: Is it true that this document was not provided to the members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - of the caucus and they knew nothing about these decisions? Isn't that the fact?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Number one, it is not ten months since the Budget, and number two, they are asking me why somebody is asking a question, their reason. You would have to ask them the reason they are asking a question. How can I tell?

My department is responsible for preparation and issuing that Budget. The document was not prepared by my department. The Budget was prepared by my department, and I will answer questions pertaining to my department and the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition is on a fishing game, wondering why someone would ask the question. What a silly question to ask in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, since they refuse to answer a very straightforward question - I asked, were they provided with the documents? - I will provide the answer. They were not. He did not get around to saying that. They were not given the information; there was no consultation.

Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier. The last government member to raise any concerns about a government decision was the Member for Windsor-Springdale during the strike. He had a few minutes of fame on television one night. Since his one-time comments, Mr. Speaker, he has been muzzled, brought back into line, and not heard of since - not in the Legislature, not in his own district, not anywhere in the Province. In light of the obvious growing concerns that exist inside that government caucus, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will you, as the Premier, now re-examine the negative decisions your government has taken without caucus support, without their knowledge, without any consultation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his question immediately.

MR. GRIMES: I am asking the question, Mr. Speaker.

- without their input, or will you find a way to muzzle the Member for Terra Nova the same way you successfully muzzled and shut up the Member for Windsor-Springdale, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated previously, we work as a team on this side of the House. There are no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are very, very important issues that are of importance to the people of this Province. The kind of political games that the Leader of the Opposition is playing in the House of Assembly is really quite shameful, to be quite frank with you.

The other side of this is, when, of course, he was the Premier of the Province - you talk about the sheep being led to the slaughter - when the Lower Churchill agreement was underway and when they were going to decide on what they were going to do with the Lower Churchill, I remember even specifically asking the former Minister of Justice whether he had, in fact, even read the agreement. I remember him saying, no, he had not even read it. He was going to read it after it was signed.

Just recently, in the papers last week, we heard the former Premier say that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could borrow another $10 billion. What la-la land does he live in? What planet have you been on? Ten billion dollars. If there was $10 billion available, why didn't you use the money from Hydro to build the Lower Churchill yourself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No understanding whatsoever of the business of government or what is going on. Unfortunately -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is altogether too much shouting across the floor. It is impossible to hear what the Premier is saying.

I would ask the Premier now if he would finish his answer rather quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No wonder, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in this Province, a fiscal problem, because obviously the former Premier did not know what the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were; did not know what the borrowing power was; did not realize that he could not get the money to build the Lower Churchill himself, but all the sheep were going to follow him to the slaughter. He made a very -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He made a very, very accurate statement in this House on March 25, 1999, when he said: I was never an English teacher, never very good at it, not even very good at mathematics that I used to teach.

I agree with you. You are right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After that hilarious rendition of, We'll Rant and We'll Roar -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: - I have a few questions for the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is asking a question and it is impossible for the Chair, or anybody else, to hear what he is saying. The hon. the member has the floor.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May 24 is the highest volume traffic weekend in this Province. People are packing up their vehicles and heading out to the country for the first long weekend of the season. It is unfortunate these motorists have to face a highway that will be filled with vehicles that are unchecked and possibly unsafe.

During Estimates last night, even the minister's own caucus members were quick to voice their concerns that government has unnecessarily cut weigh scales and staff. Did the minister do any research, I ask her, or analysis, before she made this decision? Is she cutting for the sake of cutting, and endangering public safety without a proper analysis being done? Does she agree with the Members for Terra Nova, St. John's North, Stephenville, and Port au Port, who think she is making the wrong decisions, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we have our weigh scales still in operation in this Province checking our commercial - we have fifteen highway enforcement officers on the road, checking the vehicles.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, I can only assume you do not agree with your members from those districts.

Mr. Speaker, this busy weekend we will have compromised public safety, pay more for ferries and park fees, and people will be forced to dig deeper in their pockets to pay higher gas prices. While all this happens, the minister bungles her way along, firing the Petroleum Pricing Commissioner, and then only to admit under questioning last night that there really would not be any savings. She plans to hire a new director to oversee the Commission, contrary to her earlier comments that there would be savings.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why has she needlessly put the gas regulation process in chaos when we need it the most?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the gas pricing regulations are coming under the PUB. That is an agency that is independent; it has the expertise and the experience to regulate the gas prices.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should say to the minister and her colleagues over there, read Hansard from last night and the answers that she gave last night.

Mr. Speaker, on yet another issue that is important to all the people travelling on the highways this weekend, the minister promised auto insurance changes would be brought to this House on March 17, March 25, April 8, and May 17, and several other occasions since last October. It is now May 20, over two months since it was first promised, and legislation cannot be tabled until Tuesday of next week. She said that Cabinet approved the bill two weeks ago.

I ask the minister: When will she get her act together and bring forward insurance reforms to help the consumers of this Province? Can she honour at least one promise that the Premier has made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the auto insurance has been drafted and it will be in this session of the House for all hon. members to debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Division of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: - Canadian Cancer Society has recently released -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West has the floor. I ask that members give him the attention that he deserves.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, again, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Division of the Canadian Cancer Society has recently released a comprehensive study revealing some very alarming facts on our health care system, specifically the cost that patients who live in rural and isolated areas of our Province face, versus urban areas, to receive treatment for cancer.

The study was headed up by Dr. Maria Matthews and was conducted over a three year period. It provides a glaring example, I say to the minister, of where the quality of our health care depends on our proximity to health care centres and the size of our wallets.

The results show that some patients make decisions concerning their treatment in relation to their financial status. Such decisions include: how long they continue treatment; rationing their medications; extending the time between follow-up visits; and choosing to go into a hospital rather than die at home. This also applies to people who suffer from other illness, I say to the minister.

I know the minister is aware of this study, and I want to ask her: What action is she and her government going to take to address these concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very familiar with the report that the hon. member is speaking about. I have discussed the report. I have had meetings with the President of the Cancer Society and we will be meeting again to go through the recommendations. It is the intention of this government that we will be reviewing the transportation program relating to medical services. In addition, we will be also looking at other programs which the hon. member has brought to my attention, to determine what changes should be made.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to advise the minister that the study conducted applied to people making one-time visits. Some people incurred expenses, personal expenses, of over $5,000. We have in this Province today, as the minister alluded to, a medical transportation fund that is totally inadequate, and the minister says it is up for review. I want to say to the minister that many people in this Province do not know such a plan even exists. This is reflected in the study, showing that approximately 25 per cent of the participants in the study were even aware. I ask the minister if she will take action through her department to have this plan posted in the doctor clinics around the Province, and in the hospitals around the Province, so that people are aware that they can apply for some assistance, however meager it might be at this present time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The program is on the government Internet site. In addition, I have discussed the matter with our staff and we are looking at options as to how we will make that program more publicly known.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

You have time for one short question and one short answer in your allocated time.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister if there is a time set for the meeting with the authors of this report, to discuss their findings. How soon after her meeting with them can the people of the Province expect a response?

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had one meeting with the Cancer Society already, during which we discussed that report. This was followed up with a telephone conversation. My officials are presently scheduling another report. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss the recommendations with the President of the Cancer Society as to how we will pursue it.

The other issue I would like to mention for the hon. House is that this study was conducted, as the hon. member said, with regard to people in rural Newfoundland, but the term of the study was for a three-year period over which the hon. members were the government, so the recommendations related to a program that was carried out by the previous Administration.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Minister, your government cancelled the school in L'Anse-au-Loup, deferred the redevelopment of Herdman Collegiate in Corner Brook, and postponed indefinitely the extension to Leary's Brook in St. John's, even though all of these projects had the engineering and architectural work already underway. All of these projects were top priorities for their respective school boards, and the government of which I was a part. We had committed the necessary funding.

Minister, the renovation and the extension to St. Bernard's Elementary in Witless Bay, which happens to be in the Finance Minister's district, was never a priority for the Avalon East School Board. In fact, two years ago they recommended to government that the school be closed. I ask, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell me why the St. Bernard's project is going ahead while the other projects have been cancelled or deferred?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to St. Bernard's is a priority. It has been identified as a priority. It was discussed fully, I say to the hon. member, with officials of the Avalon East School Board and with officials within the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, some difficult decisions were made several weeks ago with respect to the budgetary process, and it is true and I concur with the hon. member that yes, there was cancellation of a project and yes, there are other projects that have been deferred.

With respect to Leary's Brook, I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, if I may, that that issue has been in the media in the last little while. We met last week with representatives of the board, the department, with representatives of the school's council, and with parents as well, to address this issue. There is a public meeting next week. I, personally as minister, will be visiting Leary's Brook school, I believe it is Wednesday of next week, to see firsthand the situation that has been addressed. There are many priorities in the Province today, Mr. Speaker, and the appropriate decisions that have been made by this government have been made with reference to the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that St. Bernard's was a priority for the school board. The Chair of the Avalon East School Board and the Director of the Avalon East School Board came to government and said they wanted to close the school two years ago. As late as last fall, when I was the minister, it was not a priority for government. Now, I do not know what has happened since you became minister but it was not a priority then.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance a question: Did he interfere with the allocation of funds for school construction for his own political reasons, as he tried to do with regard to this school when I was minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2002, the former government announced that there would be $4.5 million allocated for the redevelopment of the Mobile school system. At a board meeting in November of 2002, the school board of Avalon East voted unanimously to establish this system as their number one priority. At a further meeting in January of 2003, they reaffirmed that St. Bernard's should be a K to 6; St. Partick's should close. St. Bernard's should be a K to 6 and the Mobile development will continue as a 7 to 12. I met with that member when he was minister, with the Chair of the Avalon East School Board, with his officials, with the vice-chair of the school board, with representatives of the board, and they have identified -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to finish his answer, quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I have it in writing, and he knew that. I have it in writing from the board, a documented minute from the board. I attended a meeting personally at the board in January 2003, that confirmed that. He was minister. He knew it, Mr. Speaker, he knew it. His staff, Mr. Mel Hong, Chair of the School Board -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to finish his answer in about ten seconds.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mel Hong, Chair of the Avalon East School Board, attended that meeting. Mr. Brian Shortall attended that meeting. Mr. Roger Lester attended that meeting. Mr. Gary Hatcher from his department. I met with Mr. Harold Press from his department. I met with the minister. They all knew that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat. Time for one last question.

One very quick question from the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Can I have some order here, Mr. Speaker, from the zoo crew down there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Can I get some protection from the zoo crew?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for about a ten second question and about a ten second answer.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that when the Mobile school was made a priority that St. Bernard's school was supposed to close. Now, he can yell and scream all he likes. That does not make what he is saying to be factual.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, my question is this. On many occasions I heard the Premier talk about that there would never be any decisions based on politics. Now that it is obvious of what happened between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education concerning school board funding, I ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to finish his question quickly.

MR. REID: - to investigate it and have this decision overturned.

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for a very brief answer.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is obvious what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. In November, 2002, the Avalon East School Board, at a unanimous -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to finish, Mr. Speaker. I would like to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister has a very short time to complete an answer.

The hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to hear, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would welcome everyone of these officials in a public forum with me on this issue. I would challenge them to come to a public forum on this issue because the Avalon East School Board in November, 2002 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - unanimous approval in January, 2003, when he was minister. Unanimous approval that there would be a two-school system in Mobile; a K to 6 at St. Bernard's -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - closing St. Patrick's, and Grades 7 to 12 in Mobile. Mr. Speaker, I consider that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

The Chair would like to make a comment. During Question Period today there were a number of occasions in which unparliamentary language was used across the floor. I refer to Marleau and Montpetit, page 525, which says, "Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order."

Certainly, during the time that I have been in the House, there are certain words that have been ruled unparliamentary. During Question Period today we heard, across the floor, members on the government side being referred to as puppets, and the Premier being referred to as the puppet master.

In Beauchesne and other references, that expression is clearly deemed to be unparliamentary. I would ask the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo if he would withdraw those words that were shouted across the floor of the House.

MR. REID: I withdraw the remarks, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I think, in order for business and decorum to occur in this House here - it is in writing in the member's office, when he was minister; it is on the public record - the decision was made two years ago, confirmed in January, 2003. For a Minister of the Crown who was there and knew the difference, to absolutely come to this House and make a statement that is absolutely false - the board has the records to prove it. I have the correspondence. I gave it to him, when he was minister. I participated in it. To put a reflection on me, in this House, for something that was absolutely false, is not in the conduct and reputation of me, in the House. I ask the Speaker to rule on (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Throughout this session we have had a fair number of occasions when, immediately after Question Period, points of order have been raised. These points of order have often not dealt with the rules of the House. They have nothing to do with infractions of the parliamentary proceedings. What has happened is that the rules have been used in an attempt to gain the floor, to participate in debate, to extend Question Period, to again refer to questions that were asked or answers that were given. That is not the purpose of points of order.

Points of order should deal with irregularities in the application of the rules of the House. I would ask members if they would remember that and, for reference, turn to page 538 of Marleau and Montpetit, and 539. Again, members choose for themselves when they rise on a point of order. The Chair will decide how many speakers will be made to a point of order.

In this particular case, there is not a point of order. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, in his presentation, was indeed extending the commentaries that were made in Question Period.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: To a new point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this before. We are in the first session of a new Parliament, in a new government, with a lot of first-time members. Mr. Speaker, today a very serious question was asked in Question Period of the Minister of Government Services, with respect to whether or not there was a plan -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard, if you don't mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition Leader has the floor.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- a very serious question, with respect to whether or not there was a plan to hire a director, a full-time director, in the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission office in Grand Falls-Windsor. The minister refused to answer today.

The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: Could you explain and instruct, because we all need to make sure we understand and know and learn the rules, so we understand that when a minister of the Crown gives an answer which was given in the Committee last evening - and I have it here in Hansard, which is the verbatim record or our Legislature. The question was asked: Are you looking at putting a director? Yes, we are looking at putting a director. Will it be full-time? Yes, it would be a full-time basis. The supervision would come from Mr. Noseworthy? No, Mr. Noseworthy at the PUB and the full-time director.

The question was asked today and the minister refuses to answer it. The answer, Mr. Speaker - and I would like for you to clarify this for the House - is already, in case the ministers and the new members don't know it, a part of the official record of the Legislature, and we just wanted to provide an opportunity in Question Period for the minister to again confirm what she has already stated, that they are going to hire a full-time director. The minister had already said that. That contradicts her statement of two days ago, that they are going to get rid of Mr. Saunders to save some money, they are going to hire a full-time director instead.

Could you clarify, Mr. Speaker, for all members of the House, whether or not this answer which was given and is now recorded in the minutes of this House, is one that this minister, then, should have provided. I understand she can decide to give no answer if she wants to, but why would you give one answer seven o'clock in the evening and refuse to answer the question less than twelve hours later in broad daylight?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair again makes the same point that I made a few moments ago, that these are matters which were raised in Question Period.

I refer members to Marleau and Montpetit. It is on page 431 and continuing on page 432. It is entitled, "REPLIES TO ORAL QUESTIONS". It says, "There are no explicit rules which govern the form or content of replies to oral questions. According to practice, replies are to be as brief as possible, to deal with the subject matter raised and to be phrased in language that does not provoke disorder." It says that, ministers may (a) answer the question, (b) defer their answer, (c) take the question as notice, (d) make a short explanation as to why they cannot furnish an answer at that time, or (e) they can say nothing.

It is entirely incumbent upon the minister to make any answer that she deems appropriate, including making no answer whatsoever.

There is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to rise today and make a few comments on what the Leader of the Opposition said about me, and attacked my character. I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am nobody's puppet. I was not muzzled by anybody. I was not encouraged or even spoken to by anybody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: - particularly the Premier, the Cabinet, my colleagues here on this side. No one has ever twisted my arm to make any decision, unlike the former Premier, when he tried to muzzle me in Botwood a year-and-a-half ago. He did not realize that I was not on his side, but tried to muzzle me then.

My leader, our Premier, has never, ever, said anything to me to try to change my opinion, twist my arm, or otherwise, or any other member of this side. I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale will have an opportunity in debate this afternoon to express his opinion. There is no point of order. We are merely extending Question Period beyond the time normally allocated. Although the point may be of interest to him and to all members, again there is no point of order. I would suggest that we proceed with the regular program as outlined in our Standing Orders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like, in accordance with the Internal Economy Commission Act, to table the Report of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table. I wish to table the Annual Report On Operations Carried Out Under The Automobile Insurance Act For The Period April 1, 2003 To March 31, 2004. The second report is the Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the month of April.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports? Notices of motion. Answers to questions for which notice has been given. Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the constituents in my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair with regard to the recent decisions made by the government regarding the Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, people in my district are not happy with the decision that has been taken by the government opposite to relocate the Labrador passenger ferry from the community of Cartwright to the community of Lewisporte. The people of Labrador are not happy with that decision because it will mean less service for the people in Labrador for this summer.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the government will use money out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, a fund that was set up and designated for transportation use in Labrador communities, money from that fund will now be used to support and pay for a ferry service to go into Lewisporte, and that is not acceptable to the people of my district, Mr. Speaker. Nor is it acceptable to a lot of other people in Labrador.

I had an opportunity to meet with the united Labrador group, which is the Mayor of Labrador West, the council, the councillors of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, all of the Chambers of Commerce across Labrador, all of the zonal boards across Labrador, and most of the municipalities including the Combined Councils. Mr. Speaker, they expressed their opinion and their dissatisfaction with the decision that the government opposite had taken, and the fact that they were going to have a lesser quality of marine services in Labrador this year but they would be the communities that would pay for it. It would be the money from their fund.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other priorities in my district in which this money could be used for this year, but we are not going to be able to avail of that because the minister wants to operate this service in his own district, in the District of Lewisporte, because he made that commitment to the people there in the election and now he is fulfilling that particular commitment.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my district believed the Premier. When the Premier told them on a conference call that he would accept the recommendations of a consultants report, they believed him; but, when the consultant recommended that the ferry would, indeed, be based in Cartwright, then the Premier, his minister and his government, ignored that study and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, reneged on a commitment that they had made to the people of my district and other people in Labrador.

This is why the people feel the need to petition the House of Assembly, to petition the government, asking them to change their mind, to deliberate on this some more, and to realize that what is happening here is not in the best interests or the broader interests of all the people in Labrador. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what it is, indeed, is a violation and injustice that has been embarked upon the people of Labrador by that particular Administration.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, because the Sir Robert Bond is an older ship and the Auditor General - who is now the Minister of Health and Community Services - a few years ago wrote, herself, when she was the Auditor General, that this ship is old, it would soon need to have some repairs, and would not be able to continue in that particular service or that particular capacity.

Last year, the ferry moved to Cartwright-Goose Bay. It was operating in a bay, not in rough water, Mr. Speaker. In an area where - and in a shorter distance of only twelve hours. Now we are going to use this boat again out in rough water and make a distance of thirty-six hours each way to provide the service that nobody in Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - I say to you, or very few in Labrador actually wants.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on a very grave issue in the Corner Brook, Bay of Islands, West Coast area. It is concerning the long-term care facility in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that since the news came out in the last couple of days, how long it is gong to take to build, that I will have more than one petition to present in this hon. House. I will read the prayer of the petition for the first time and then when I present the rest of the petitions I will speak on the concerns and the needs of the people:

WHEREAS the existing health facilities in Western Newfoundland for extended and chronic care patients are woefully inadequate to meet the demand; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation anticipated the demand for a long-term care facility in the region and commissioned a study in 2000, and that the study was concluded in 2001 and recommended that a new facility be constructed; and

WHEREAS the study was delivered to the Department of Health and Community Services in August 2001, and follow up presentation was given in October 2001; and

WHEREAS a conceptual plan was presented to the regional MHAs in January of 2002 that outlined the necessary infrastructure required to address the extended care and chronic care needs of Western Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to begin implementation of the plan to build the required facilities as identified in the study.

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in Corner Brook which is of grave concern to a lot of people in Corner Brook, the long-term care facility. This issue has been on the go in Corner Brook - on the West Coast there are some twenty-eight people in acute care beds right now in the Corner Brook area who are waiting for the long-term care facility requirements.

The reason why this is coming to light again on more of a front by the residents, Mr. Speaker, is because of the comments made by the Minister of Health and by the recent Budget. Before and during the election we all knew the concern. It was raised by the Premier now, it was raised by the Member for Humber East, the Minister of Justice, and it was raised by myself, of the need and of the concern.

We, myself included, were always under the impression that once the new Budget came in there would be funding there for the long-term care facility. As we see with the $300,000 which was allotted, under questioning to the minister yesterday, it is for some kind of land acquisition. To put a down payment on a piece of land, to do some work on the land to see if the land is suitable, Mr. Speaker, and do some preliminary work. This is not what the people of the West Coast, the Corner Brook area anticipated.

The minister also said yesterday, under questioning, that if the funding comes through for the next budget it will take several years to complete the design of the long-term care facility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I will clue up with that. I am sure I will be bringing back further petitions on behalf of the residents of the West Coast, Bay of Islands, Corner Brook area to express the need, the concern and then push on this government the commitment they made during the election, that this facility would be built in the four-year mandate that the Premier put in an election promise to the residents of Corner Brook.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the South Coast of Newfoundland, particularly Grey River, François, Ramea and Burgeo concerning the closure of their HRE office as announced by this Administration a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, I have, on their behalf, also brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and, in fact, raised several questions concerning this matter in the Estimates Committee of the House two nights ago.

Mr. Speaker, just so everyone out here knows the effects of it, everybody is pretty familiar with the geography. Burgeo is situated on the South Coast at the end of a 154 kilometres of very difficult roadway. It is isolated, as are the other communities that I just referenced. There three employees, in particular, who are affected by the closure, but thousands of people who are affected by this closure. I asked the minister in Estimates the other night: Did you do any cost analysis to justify the closure? The minister's response was that she had not. She could not give any cost analysis. I said: What happens to the closure of the office? You are saving for three employees and a bit of light and heat and whatever, have you got any statistics to show how that is offset by the extra expenses of the people who have to come now from that area to the closest office in Stephenville? There was no such analysis done, Mr. Speaker. The minister admitted to such. She finally said: Well, it was based upon statistics that we had vis-à-vis the number of files in the office.

Mr. Speaker, that was not the answer given by the minister initially when this was announced to justify the closures, and there were no cost savings. The truth will prove that there are no cost savings. Forget about the hardship that the closure of this office does to the people. There is no justification for doing it from a cost perspective. It may fit, as the minister says, to close Stephenville Crossing, which happens to be in her area, to put people in Stephenville. We are talking fifteen, twenty, twenty-five kilometres. It is not near the hardship nor the cost factor in closing Stephenville Crossing to go to Stephenville as it is to close Burgeo to take people to Stephenville. We are talking days, in fact, that get added to someone in Grey River to try to get to Stephenville. Not everybody has a computer. Not everybody has a phone. These offices do not only serve the purposes of direct HRE. I mean these people go to these offices for all kinds of assistance. Some people cannot read and write, unfortunately. They go to their financial officers, who work in these locations, to get their assistance. It may be filling out an old age form. It may be getting a Canada Pension form. It is one thing to save money, and I am all in favour of saving money where it is justified, but in the closure of Burgeo, Mr. Speaker, there was no justification. None! The minister knows there was no justification done in the case of Burgeo. So, if you are going to make these tough decisions, for God's sake, make them based upon the facts and the figures. This has to be done in order to justify these -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of all of the people in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I will read the petition and the prayer:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS the Auditorium Committee has the support of all Labrador communities for an auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; and

WHEREAS the Committee has obtained $300,000 funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, dependent on provincial money and has raised $20,000 locally; and

WHEREAS there is no performance space in Eastern Labrador and it needs to be within walking distance for students to use;

THEREFORE we ask the government to provide the $2.4 million designated, but now deferred, to begin construction during this season, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Liberal government committed $2.4 million to build an auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Right now, there is no such facility in the Upper Lake Melville area. It is the place where students from all across Labrador gather for science fares and for different competitions; a place for all of the people from Labrador to come together.

Mr. Speaker, I remember very well a lady from the North Coast of Labrador who said that her son went to a competition and although he did not win, when he came back she could see the confidence where he had gone out and talked with his peers. Mr. Speaker, I think these people in Labrador - especially the students - deserve such an auditorium.

Mr. Speaker, because of the short construction season in Labrador, if this facility is not started very soon then we will have another whole year - as a matter of fact, it will be two years gone, because if you do not start until next summer then it will not be until the following spring when that building will be ready to be occupied.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are many people in this Province who would begrudge any part of this Province such a facility. Certainly, I can say that the children and the people in Labrador are deserving just as much as anybody else.

I have had several conversations with the Minister of Education to outline the importance of such a building and certainly, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this government will see, in the next few days, before the end of the school year, to make such announcements that will give some comfort to the people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time when we promote tourism and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thirty seconds to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a time when performers are advertising all across this Province to hold different concerts and exhibitions. Unfortunately, the people in the Upper Lake Melville area and in Labrador do not have such a facility.

Mr. Speaker, I will rise again tomorrow and the day after and so on, until such a time as the auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area becomes a reality.

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of residents of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who have approached me with this petition and asked that I present it here in the House of Assembly. I will read the petition, Mr. Speaker, and then I will be able to elaborate on the contents of it.

WHEREAS the rights of grandparents have been neglected; and

WHEREAS this causes a violation of civil and human rights of grandparents and grandchildren;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to make laws protecting the rights of grandparents as these rights apply to the raising of grandchildren; and

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition of some 2,300 or 2,400 names signed by grandparents and their supporters, people or grandparents who unfortunately find themselves being denied access to their grandchildren. There are a variety of reasons for this, Mr. Speaker. In most cases, based upon the interaction and communication I have had with the people who have signed this petition, it is because of child custody cases, where their sons or daughters and their spouses have split up. In most other jurisdictions in North America, including the United States and Canada, grandparents are assumed to have, or presumed to have, the right to have visitation rights to their grandchildren should a child custody case or should a family split up.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, they have to apply for that right. In some cases that right may be contested and a very lengthy and expensive legal battle can occur, and has occurred many times, Mr. Speaker. There is an association called the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, which is based in British Columbia, which assists and supports grandparents and their families in maintaining and re-establishing family ties. It has branches throughout many provinces of Canada.

There has been legislation passed, Mr. Speaker, in New Brunswick, in Alberta, in the Yukon, and in British Columbia, where grandparents have leave to apply for custody and to have access to their grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, the grandchildren, when they are being raised by their parents, before the split in the family occurs, obviously have very warm and loving relations with their grandparents. The trauma of having the mother and father split up sometimes is very much compounded by the fact that they are no longer, then, allowed to visit with their grandparents.

I will present this petition, as I said, on behalf of the people who have signed it, some 2,300 to 2,400 people. I have already spoken to our Minister of Justice. He has already had some people working on researching this issue for us, and we hope to be able to come back to the House with some legislation that will allow the grandparents in Newfoundland and Labrador the same rights and the same access that grandparents in many other jurisdictions in Canada and North America enjoy.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been waiting here in the queue for so long that I almost forgot what my petition was. Nevertheless, I will continue on.

I am glad to see the Minister of Education sitting there today, listening so attentively. I understand that he has had his meeting with the new school board for the Avalon area, and I hope he has raised the concerns of the parents and students of Carbonear regarding their school, St. Joseph's.

I have another petition today to present. I have read the prayer so often now already, if you would indulge me, I will not read it today.

The gist of it all is that the parents and students themselves are very concerned about what is going to happen in September. There has been no assurance from the outgoing school board, or now defunct school board, as to what will happen. There seems to be a lack of communication between the now defunct school board and the parents' committee as to what is happening. There is no tender called for the necessary renovations to St. Francis in Harbour Grace, that is going to accommodate some 200-plus student. There is no tender call for the renovations to Davis Elementary in Carbonear, which, by the way, is the same age as St. Joseph's. Davis Elementary - if you looked at both schools, you would say that St. Joseph's Elementary is probably in better condition than Davis, but the decision was made because of some engineering study that was done on both schools and it was a close tie, I say, Mr. Speaker, as to which of the two should remain open, or if both should close.

The reality of the situation is, if schools are in the condition of thirty-five to forty years of age, both of them should be closed. Air quality, the width of the corridors, fire safety regulations, all of that stuff, just has not been kept up to date over the past thirty-five or forty years.

The parents, again last Saturday, had a joint motorcade. The amount of support is gathering, is growing, for this particular problem. The students themselves, and parents, the committee, formed a human chain around the school on Saturday past and a local paper was there and took all the pictures. It should be in the paper next week, for that matter.

The interesting part - the new twist coming to this now - is that a prominent St. John's lawyer has decided to take this case upon himself, and the end result, I guess, is that government will be taken to court, or the new school board. I think it would be a terrible statement to make that the new school board would find itself spending money now on court costs, or the government itself, at a time of restraint, fighting a lawsuit against this particular initiative.

What I am asking the minister to do, and the government to do, is to reconsider this. Put it at least on hold for another year. Give the new board that has been formed and set up with their - I know it is early in their mandate. They have only had one meeting - but to at least, on behalf of the parents and students of Carbonear, St. Joseph's and Davis Elementary, to give them a chance to make their case to a new board; because, obviously, now that we have a bigger model, their voice is going to be smaller.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, three minutes, after waiting so long, seem to have gone so quickly, but I am sure, Minister, that you have understood my case.

With that, I will present the petition and, on Tuesday, I guess, I will be back with another one as they keep coming in.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 4, first reading of a bill, An Act to Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 22)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," carried. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 21)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," carried. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 6, to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 20)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2," carried. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000, No. 2. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 7, to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 23)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act," carried. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 8, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges, Bill 24, now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges. (Bill 24)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges," carried. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Order 1, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates, I guess, by agreement, of the Legislature and Executive Council.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Order 1, Committee of Supply.

It is the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole is now ready to receive debate on the heading of the Legislature, the House of Assembly.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

This is an opportunity to discuss, I guess, in detail, some of the Estimates or process of the Budget not discussed in Committee. For those who may be watching, or in the gallery, the thirteen departments in government, many of them are discussed in what we call the Committee level, outside of the House of Assembly, mornings, afternoons, or in the evening, related to every detail that is in the Budget.

The Minister of Environment, for example, why is his or her department spending x number of dollars in transportation? Why is such-and-such spending so much on communications? That is the process of debate that we are involved with right now with respect to the Budget.

Part and parcel of the Budget, there are areas such as the Consolidated Fund Services, the Legislature and the House of Assembly operations, which govern the place that we sit in, the officers of the House, independent officers of the House, whether it be the Auditor General, whether it be the Child and Youth Advocate, whether it be the Privacy Commissioner, whether it be the Consumer Advocate, all of those officers who report to the House fall under the debate, and we are about to debate their budget here this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, the Legislature, itself, and what we are doing right now - I would be happy to answer any questions, but I guess for members understanding, or even more complete understanding on both sides of the House, that when it comes to the Legislature of the Province, this is not governed necessarily by just government members or ministers. There is a Committee of the Legislature which involves - both the Official Opposition have representatives on that committee, as well as members on this side of government, who ultimately make the decisions concerning all of those areas, whether it be financial, human resource or otherwise, that deal with the estimates and what is being put forward. Now that committee does not always agree, obviously, Mr. Chair, but generally speaking the committee works very well.

The jurisdiction under the Legislature that we speak about and what we are speaking about today essentially talks about, or the decisions made associated with this subhead and this area of the Budget are made by that committee known as the Internal Economy Commission. That is the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, the Opposition House Leader by statute, enactment of the Legislature, myself, in my role as Government House Leader by statute, and two other members of government and one other member of the Official Opposition.

The House of Assembly is comprised of - in terms of the operations within the House: members salaries; private member's salaries; members salaries generally as private members; staff people that we get as a member when we are elected; an administrative assistant who works with us in our capacity of fulfilling our duties to the district we represent, responding to constituent calls, dealing with a variety of issues, from social housing to: How do you start your own business? Where do I access funds? Is there money available from government to help me with what I am doing? - to agricultural concerns, social justice concerns, you name it; employment concerns, issues related to infrastructure, particularly in rural Newfoundland. You name it, and members in this House received calls on it, get inquires on behalf of their constituents. It is more or less a front line in many ways. We are all advocates, to some degree.

The Member for Bonavista North, a good friend and colleague of mine. We have chatted about this, but when it comes down to a constituent who phones us, that person phones with an anticipation that as a member we can at least try to help, do our best to get an answer and try to resolve the problems that are faced before us. Really, we are an individual advocate for constituents that call on our behalf.

Mr. Chairman, part of the House operations, as well, deals with the allowances that members get. Those allowances are not for members' personal use - while some people may think it - but those allowances are for the use of back and forth to our districts in the expenditure of how we get to where we are supposed to get. I mean, there are districts that have far greater geographical challenges than others. I will name a few.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, it takes a little while longer to get around her district than it would for me, for example, in the area of Kilbride, the Goulds and that area. The Member for Torngat Mountains, both of these members, I know would have to have the utilization of air services or helicopter services to get them into some of the more remote communities within their districts. The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, another example of a spread out district. The Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Bonavista North, the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for St. Barbe, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Member for Humber Valley, for example, all have different geographical challenges than members who live, say, in urban areas. Members who may reside in Corner Brook, or parts of the Northeast Avalon, or members whose districts are all confined within Grand Falls-Buchans. I know it is more of a challenge geographical out that way than where I am to, but certainly not as much as some of our own colleagues.

The allowances that we are voting on right here now reflect, I think fairly accurately, the realities that face certain members in certain geographic areas, that tries to go towards accommodating, on the one hand, the ability that we must have as members to service our constituents and part of that means we must get to where they are. On top of that, the ability of the member to go back and forth; get back to his or her district to make sure that they are there. That could be quite expensive for members who have larger districts. Just ask anybody who lives on the Northern Peninsula. Ask the members on this side who fly back and forth. Ask the members from Labrador how expensive that can be, and they will certainly indicate it to you. Generally speaking, that is part of what we are going to be voting upon today as well.

With respect to the House of Assembly Operations, each and every - if I could stoop down here for a second and haul one out. This is an Order Paper that is printed everyday. We have another document that is printed everyday, it is called Hansard. These are services that are provided to us simply and wholly by our staff of the House of Assembly, because without them this place would not exist. The official record of the House would not exist. The service provided by the Clerks at the Table, a service that is absolutely necessary for all of us to be able to do our job fundamentally, or a very important aspect of our job, which is to debate issues of importance and of concern to the people of the Province in this Legislature but also to debate legislation that is brought forward by government to - in the thrust and throe of that debate, that sort of adversarial system - which ultimately works by the way. It ultimately does work. The merits and demerits of a piece of legislation or an issue can get debated, but all of that is enhanced and enabled by the staff of the Speaker's Office and by Hansard, who transcribe the official record of this House. Whatever is said in this Legislature during the day's proceedings, we come in the next day and that is recorded for us. A copy is laid upon our desk so that we can refer to what occurred yesterday on the official record of the House of Assembly. Very, very important.

Another function that is provided, in terms of a service to members, is the Legislative Library. A very important function. That is where our legislative history is held. At any time if a member has a wish or a need to access a particular or peculiar document, a particular or peculiar document in some point in history, whether that was ten years ago, twenty years ago or thirty years ago, that the Legislative Library provides a function for members by where they can go to the library, get the record of the House, look back at what has occurred in history, and get the service they need. Also, while that is not exclusively what happens in the Library, like any other library, it has a fairly lengthy catalogue of materials, periodicals and journals and a whole - what you would see in many libraries that would be peculiar and particular to the work of members in this House as we move forward in providing what we believe to be a service to the people of the Province who elected us in the first instance to be here.

One of the functions - the House of Assembly budget has grown over the last little while, for good reason. That is there are a number of independent officers of the House who report - not to any department in government, not to the Premier's office, but by the very nature and function of who they are, the service they provide, the reason for their existence - that they report directly to the House of Assembly. They do not report to a Minister of the Crown. They do not report to a private member. They report to forty-eight members of the Legislature, one time, every year. Of course the groups that I am talking about, first of all, is the Auditor General of the Province. The Auditor General is an independent agency, an independent officer of this House, who once a year puts a report on the table and on the desk of each and every single member. In 1996, I served in the capacity of Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Actually, the Auditor General of the day is now the Minister of Health and Community Services, so I had the opportunity to work with the Auditor General's office and gain a fairly intimate understanding. Actually, today's Finance Critic was also a member of that Committee when I was Chair of it.

I think there are a little over 220 agencies. That includes all of the departments within government that the Auditor General is responsible for auditing on a year over year basis. That is done from a compliance point of view. Was the money that was passed in the Legislature in a particular budget, for example, this Budget, spent according to the legislative frameworks that are set out?

Each and every year, the Auditor General, on a rotating basis, has a number of departments that he or she looks at, where they go in and have a look at all of what has transpired within that Crown corporation, within that department or whatever agency they are involved with. Then, that is reported directly to the forty-eight members of the House, again, not to a minister, not to the Premier, but directly to all of us. That provides, in our view, one of the systems of accountability and one of the systems of the independence and the importance of that office and why it should be independent.

Another officer of the House is also critical to the operations of the system of democracy that we enjoy and that we have the absolute privilege and pleasure of participating in as members, and that is the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. That officer's budget is funded and we will be debating some of that here today. I want to give an overview, and that is what I am up to.

That person is responsible for the administration of elections in this Province, of by-elections, and there are appropriations. He is also the Commissioner for Members' Interests where he has a look at all members in terms of their private capacity, you know, if there were any private interests that would put them in a conflict of interest in government or as a member of the Legislature. This officer is now performed by a gentleman by the name of Mr. Wayne Green. He has done an admirable job in that position, I want to say that, as well as Mr. Noseworthy, the Auditor General currently.

Another important function of the operation - and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer reports to the Internal Economy Commission, and reports to this Legislature; again, not to a government member, not to an individual member in the House, not to a minister, but to the forty-eight men and women who have the privilege of sitting here and debating legislation.

In recent years, there were a couple of others, the Office of the Citizens' Representative, formerly known as the Ombudsman. That was the former name of it. It was changed to the Citizens' Representative. That person, again, is an independent officer of the House of Assembly. He doesn't report to anybody in government exclusively, but reports directly to the House of Assembly through the head of the department, I guess, which is the Speaker of the House.

The Citizens' Representative is there for the average citizen who may feel aggrieved by an action that government has taken, or a department has taken, whereby that person, in his capacity, Mr. Fraser March, in his capacity as the Citizens' Representative - I think this is his third year, now, in operation - in his capacity as the Citizens' Representative can take action. If there has been an injustice that has been put upon somebody, if somebody who feels aggrieved and has a legitimate and bona fide reason for feeling aggrieved, that the system of government, the bureaucracy of government, has somehow let them down or not dealt with them fairly or not dealt with them squarely, then the power that the Citizens' Representative has is clear. The Citizens' Representative has the ability to launch an inquiry and reports, again, directly to the forty-eight men and women who sit in this particular Chamber. That is a critical - again, a critical - function of the democracy that we sit in. It is an oversight protection mechanism for the average citizen who has nowhere else to go; but, from our viewpoint - and I say our in terms of all members - we have set upon ourselves to put in place an office that can represent citizens who have a place to go to launch their grievance, to have it investigated and, if there is legitimacy to it, to have action taken upon it. That is one of the other independent offices of the House.

One of the other offices is the Office of Child and Youth Advocate. Again, this office was put in place and it served - again, it would be remiss of me not to compliment, Mr. March on the job that he has done as the Citizens' Representative.

Next is the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. This is another independent office of the Legislature that reports directly to all forty-eight members, and it is primarily concerned with the issues related to children.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Government House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just about conclude, Mr. Chair, if it would be okay.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

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

The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, that role, that officer, is in place to look at the interests of children, against the grid of government policy and government, to see how children are being served. How are the policies of government serving the children of the Province? Where have children and children's interests not been served? Again, in an expression of the forty-eight members in this Legislature who supported this particular initiative when it was brought forward, this is an example, again, of the level of interest and level of commitment and level of compassion that members, all of the men and women in this House who were elected, have towards serving the interests of children.

Would we like to be able to do more? Yes, we would. Would every member like to be able to provide more funding to take care of the Citizens' Representative, to take care of the Child and Youth Advocate, to take care of the Auditor General, to take care of having more staff in the House of Assembly, to be able to provide a better service in terms of the Legislative Library, to be able to provide more staff to members, to help members out. Of course, we would. The fact of the matter is, all of our budgets - this year, last year, the year before, next year and the year after - are finite. We try to do the best we can and try to, particularly within the Legislative branch, govern by the Internal Economy Commission, which is all members' representative, trying to bring to - and I believe we do, for the most part, achieve consensus on the issues as they relate to the Legislature.

Finally, the issue of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commission. There is a budget allocation associated with that there, as members have seen. It is our intent, this is an initiative brought forward that was associated with the bill, the Citizens' Representative, brought forward by a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who is now the Opposition House Leader, my counterpart in the Legislature, and the piece of legislation that eventually passed - there was some difficulty, for legitimate and bona fide reason, while they were the government, in terms of enacting that part of the legislation. There were some now, but we are about ready to enact that part of the legislation, which is the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and we are hopeful that office will be up and running very soon.

With that, Mr. Chair, and to members opposite, thank you for providing me leave. That is sort of a top-of-the-trees assessment, a summary, without getting into the Budget details, which we certainly can, of what the Legislature is, what compromises the Legislature, what is the intent and purpose behind the subheads and titles under the Budget in Legislature, and how important the function of the Legislature is to the people of the Province.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased today to respond to the Budget Debate on one section of the Budget, which is the Legislature. As the Government House Leader just said in his speech, the Legislature itself is the nucleus of government and provides a very, very important function. The Legislature, of course, is governed by the Internal Economy Commission and it is important, I guess, for the members of the general public to know that the Internal Economy Commission is made up of members on both sides of the House. Normally, everything that comes before the Commission always concerns all members of the House and it is debated in that particular Committee and a resolution is always found to the satisfaction of both sides of the House, a very important function provided by the Legislature. Of course, the duties of the Legislature under this heading have now been expanded because in recent years, with the bringing on of different advocates, I guess, is one way to describe the Citizens' Representative, the Child and Youth Advocate, and Information and Privacy Commissioner, that the role of the Legislature and the Internal Economy Commission has expanded.

I am pleased to stand here today as the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and a member of the Official Opposition party that said that we were quite in agreement ourselves this year in taking part in a restraint measure of this government as it pertains to the actual constituency allowance of the Members of the House of Assembly.

As the Government House Leader just said, all of us are from different places around our Province and many of us have to travel quite a distance to provide good service to our members. It is particularly difficult for people in Labrador, in particular, and those who have to travel even by helicopter and boat to make sure that the wishes of their constituents are brought forward and well represented.

It is interesting that today, when we are talking about the Legislature, the report now that is of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, is now available and it has been placed on our desk. It is interesting to see what kind of topics the Internal Economy Commission discuss from time to time with the running of the House. In fact, this is public knowledge but I might throw this out because it would probably be interesting for the members of the general public. One of the things that the Commission agreed to was that still photographers be permitted on the floor and galleries of the House of Assembly during the Throne Speech and the Budget Speech, but, the photographers could not obstruct the television cameras or be in the way of television coverage of the proceedings. That has been a good move on behalf of the Legislature, to provide televising of the House of Assembly, because many people around our Province now do not have an opportunity to come into St. John's and actually sit in the Legislature and be a part of the debate that is going on every day while the House is in session. Now they can sit in the comfort of their own homes and follow all the debate and see what is being said and what decisions are being made by government and what questions are being posed by the Opposition. They can even see whether or not the members are actually representing their concerns by way of what they say in the House and sometimes by what they do not say in the House.

Television has had a huge impact on the government, and the word getting out, and the message, and making people more aware all around this Province of what is being done here. I only wish that television coverage could be supplied to some rural communities that do not have it right now. It was the idea, in the initial stages of providing television coverage of the House of Assembly, that every community in Newfoundland and Labrador would have the opportunity to view the House of Assembly, but I know for certain that there are still communities out in our Province that do not have that hookup capability. I think it is a disservice. I would encourage this government to look into the matter and see if that coverage can be extended to those communities that do not have it right now.

When you look at the fact that part of the expense that comes under the Legislature is actually the printing of the Hansard. The printing of the Hansard is a verbatim report of everything that is said in the House of Assembly on a daily basis. It is a book like this. This is the actual book. No matter what is being said it is all recorded in the Hansard book. Now sometimes that can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing because all of us, as politicians, know that there is no such thing as off the record. Absolutely no such thing as off the record. Many times we are confronted by the media and we may think that it is off the record, but everything you do and say - mostly everything you say. As a matter of fact, everything you do. If you are on camera people can see what you are doing and they can hear what you are saying. But, this is the printed form of everything we say in the House of Assembly. It is a good service. It is definitely a good service because many times we can all be taken to task for something we may have said. Of course, if you are a Minister of the Crown anything that you say you are saying it on behalf of the government that you represent. You can definitely be held to task on that particular item.

In fact, last night in the Estimates Committee, when I questioned the Minister of Government Services, there was a statement made with regard to the actual appointing of a director to replace the pricing commissioner in Grand Falls-Windsor. She was reported, I heard her, and it has been stated in the Hansard today that she actually did say that, that there would be a director to replace the pricing commissioner in Grand Falls-Windsor. She is a Minister of the Crown and she speaks for government every time she speaks, as would any minister on the other side of the House. That is considered to be a statement on governments behalf.

This particular Hansard is a very effective tool and the fact that it is now, of course, available through the Internet services. Everything that is said is recorded and anyone, anywhere, in any part of the world can now log on to the House of Assembly and they can read for themselves exactly what was said at any particular time while it was being recorded. So it is a very effective communication tool. As I said before, sometimes it can act to the detriment of some members and maybe to the betterment of others, but a very effective tool.

Most recently we have added the Office of the Citizens' Representative, Mr. Fraser March. The ordinary things that would come before an Internal Economy Commission meeting would be with regards to staffing matters, regards to workload, rental spaces, issues with regard to travel, because we all know that those particular advocates have to service all areas of the Province.

I know in particular when we had the Badger flood, February 15, 2003, there were some issues regarding the actual payment of householders regarding flood damage. In two or three situations the Citizens' Representative was called in to a meeting whereby some of the concerned citizens voiced their concerns. I believe that matter is still under review by the Citizens' Representative. The matters that come before the Citizens' Representative are not only St. John's matters, even though the office is here. The Citizens' Representative and his staff would have research involved, travel involved, and meetings all over this Province to resolve the issues that cannot be resolved through normal interaction between citizens and government. So a very important function is played by that office.

We can never say too much about the Child and Youth Advocate. There are so many issues today in our Province concerning young people. We hear them everyday. When a parent or guardian exhaust all possibilities of resolving situations about young people and young people themselves exhaust all avenues, there must be another final level you can take your issue to if you cannot get it resolved. We realized that as the former Administration. For that very reason we decided - after lobby from a great number of groups and interested people - we would actually provide legislation for a Child and Youth Advocate. That office is now up and running. Like any office, they start off small, and then as a result of being able to look after a great many problems, their lists of people wanting things looked into continues to grow.

I know as a government, previous to this one, it was always difficult to find money to look after these very necessary programs and offices, but sometimes you have to make decisions that will affect the health and well-being of our citizens. Sometimes you cannot compromise health and safety. Many times in the past - and I am sure in the future - you may have to show a deficit on health and social issues, and public safety issues, that there is absolutely no way around. We have seen that many times ourselves when we were puzzled, as a former Administration, having difficult decisions given to us; difficult matters that would come before us and knowing, many times, that we did not have the funding in place to look after the concerns.

I think back to a few of them, when we looked at the waiting lists for cardiac surgery in our Province. That almost seems to be a non-issue at this point, although many people are still waiting, but the list is not as intense as it used to be. There was a request that came to the previous Administration to offer more cardiac surgeries every week, and once you make a decision to go down that road you can never do it as a one-time decision to provide more cardiac surgeries for five or six months. It must be done right into the future. So, by doing that, that cost a lot of money, but we were prepared to show a deficit because we knew that life was more important than balancing the books. As a former President of Treasury Board, I can tell anybody listening today and watching, when a health care budget increases from $900 million to $1.4 billion - and it does not come from the federal government to make up that slack - you are definitely going to have a deficit.

These are the kinds of things that you would discuss at an Internal Economy Commission. These are questions sometimes a Child and Youth Advocate would bring with regard to situations of Aboriginal children and the money needed to be spent in that area. That is only one that comes to mind. Naturally, you do not have a budget to look after every situation that comes across your desk but you try to respond. As a government you try to respond in the best way possible, and sometimes that means spending money that you do not have.

I want to also talk about the Chief Electoral Office. We all know, as elected members, and myself now on my third term in office - I am a very grateful to the people of Grand Falls-Buchans for showing their confidence in me once again. The Chief Electoral Office provides a very valuable function of the Legislature. All of us know, who have been here and even those for the first time, every time you are elected, by April 1 of every year you must file what we call a Conflict of Interest Statement. That is very important, because many of us leave private life where you may have had situations where you had business interests, or sat on various boards or corporations. That could be a conflict once you are here as part of the Legislature, particularly if you sit on the government side and you are making decisions that may affect the very people that you had been doing business with in the past. It is important and, of course, the Chief Electoral Officer would have to ensure that every member of this hon. House would file a Conflict of Interest Statement by April 1 of each year. Of course, if there was anything out of order in that statement it would be made known and the member would be given a period of time to correct it. If anything changes throughout the year, that would cause a perception of conflict of interest, the member has an obligation to report it to the Chief Electoral Office so he can review it and make sure that the member's affairs are in order.

These are all areas that come under the Legislature.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I will just be a moment, if you do not mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to say that this is an area of the Budget that both sides of the House have debate and interaction on. We know how important it is, and how transparent and above board all of us must be. I am glad to be part of the Legislature. I have no problem in supporting the Budget line, because I know it is a true and an accurate reflection of the work that is being carried out by this Legislature.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the House expenditures subheads 1.1.01 to 6.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1 through 6 carried.

CLERK: The total.

CHAIR: Shall the total of $15,475,500 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, total carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the subheads under the House of Assembly budget carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Department of the House of Assembly, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr.Chairman.

It is my understanding that we are now going to proceed with matters under the heading of Executive Council.

CHAIR: We will debating the subheads under the Executive Council.

Shall subheads 1.1.01 to 3.1.09 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak to the heading under Executive Council today, and talk about some of the items that fall under this heading. It was interesting to be part of a government for the past eight years and, when we always got around to this part of the discussion, members of the Opposition always had many questions with regard to the actual running of Government House. I wonder now, today, while they sit in government are they as opposed to the operation of the Government House as they were in the eight-and-a-half years that I was part of government? That would be an interesting response to hear from the government side, I am sure. I notice that there is a small difference in the operation of Government House. There was $589,000 spent last year, and this year there is $529,000 in that particular budget. I know there is a salary reduction, probably of one person. I do not know if the Minister of Finance could let me know what position that would be, or if we would like to answer later? Apparently so.

Under the Premier's Office, 2.l.01., I notice that there is a small increase in the salary portion of the Premier's Office. I do not know how small it would be. Last year it was forecast that $1.2 million would be spent; but, in actual fact, last year there was $1.1 million spent. This year the salary line is $1,240,300. It looks like we have new staff added to the Premier's Office. Maybe the Minister of Finance would be able to elaborate on that one.

I also note that in 2.2.01., Executive Support, to the Premier, last year there was $842,300 spent in salaries and this year there is $856,900. It appears that we have someone else hired or they are at a higher salary. I would like to also ask, particularly under Executive Support, last year there was $10,000 spent for Professional Services and this year we have money being spent to the tune of $327,000. Now, that is quite a difference, from $10,000 to $327,000. I wonder, could the Minister of Finance explain that situation? Professional services could be any range of things. It could actually be outside consultants, it could be communications, it could be ad agencies, it could be a number of things, but I would appreciate hearing from the Minister of Finance in that regard.

I also note that 2.2.02., Economical and Social Policy Analysis, these are people who work as part of the Cabinet Secretariat and they do analysis of various projects that come before government before a decision is made. I also noticed there that the salary line for those people will be increased from $341,000 to $432,000. I would like to have an explanation on that area.

We have a Premier who said, when he got elected, that he would run a smaller government. I would like to ask during this questioning on the Executive Council, if I could have a list of all the people who are employed in Executive Council, what positions are there now and considered to be vacant and will not be filled, what positions are there that are currently vacant and will be filled, and how many people and positions were there last year that are not there this year? If I could have that by May 31, it would be appreciated.

Also, under 2.2.05., Protocol, which tells government all the do's and don't, and the right things to do on various formal occasions, and how to sign your name and what to do when you are dealing with very important people from all over the country, this Protocol Office last year had $15,000 that they spent in transportation and communications. This year, they are going to spend $85,000. That is an increase of $60,000 in transportation and communications. I would like to know whether or not the Protocol Office will be travelling with the Premier on other junkets, when he is going abroad to Europe and other countries, or what they are planning to do with the increase there of $60,000. I noticed that there is going to be an increase there in Purchased Services, too. Last year there was $130,000 and that could be anywhere in the way of supplies and outside consulting, you name it. This is going to go from $130,000 to $142,000.

We have a Minister's Office there, it says Intergovernmental Affairs. Now, we know that Intergovernmental Affairs is going to be handled by the Premier. We know the new Department of Business is going to be handled by the Premier. We do not see a salary there. That is a good thing, but we do see a travel budget of $50,000. Now, the Premier already has $750,000 in his travel budget for the new Department of Business, but he needs another $50,000 coming out of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I would like to know why he needs this. Is it true that he plans to open up an office in Europe? I heard that in the media a day or so ago, that our Premier plans to open up an office in Europe. Can you imagine!

MR. JOYCE: Is it in the Budget?

MS THISTLE: No, it is not in this Budget unless it is hidden. It is definitely not in the Budget.

We have the Premier now, he wants to open an office in Ottawa. That is $350,000. He wants to open up an office in Europe. We do not know what that is going to cost or where it is in this Budget. I do not see it, unless it is hidden. It is a funny thing about it, he is going to close down twenty Human Resources and Employment offices. He is going to layoff the weigh scale inspectors, shut down the weigh scales. I asked the Minister of Government Services last night, what was her plan. Is she going to dismantle the weigh scales in Port aux Basques or is she going to mothball it? She said she would mothball it. Now, that is interesting. At least, it is not going off the face of the earth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). They are going to need a lot of mothballs.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

So, imagine now, the Premier intending to open up an European office when I cannot get a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor to treat the people who need cancer treatment everyday. I cannot get that office in Grand Falls-Windsor and he wants to open up an office in Europe. Can you imagine?

Now, here we are again, they always say the devil is in the details. The devil is in the details. Here we go, under Executive Support, for Purchased Services. Purchased Services, you can put anything under Purchased Services. Now, I would like to know what is going under Purchased Services when last year there was $20,000 spent and this year they are going to spend $278,000. Can you imagine? I would like to have a rundown on it and what the Executive Support of the Intergovernmental Affairs - the department, I suppose, you would call it. Now, where is that department? I heard last night in Estimates Committee that the fourth floor of the West Block at Confederation Building is wiped out. Wiped out!

When I was the Minister of Labour, Occupational Health and Safety operated in that same Department of Labour. There are thirty people who are going to be moved. They have probably already moved to a rental space in Donovan's Industrial Park. Now, here is a Premier who said he was going to have a smaller government. Here he is now, he combined two or three departments to make it sound good. He is going to wipe out the fourth floor of the West Block but he got something else in mind to put in there.

He is going to go out to the private sector and pay rent in Donovan's Industrial Park to house the Occupational Health and Safety, which are thirty positions. Thirty positions takes up a lot of space, let me tell you that, with all their equipment for occupational health and safety all across the Province. You see the devil is in the details, because we are looking at Purchased Services under Executive Support going from $20,000 to $278,000 with not an explanation.

Policy Analysis and Coordination of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. Our Premier is the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. What is he going to be doing to spend that kind of money? Can anybody tell me? Salaries jump in that section, for Policy Analysis, from $551,000 up to $605,000. So, there are more people hired. The devil is in the details for sure.

Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Ottawa Office. We have $200,000 in Salaries. We have a budget of $55,000. Now that is on top of the Intergovernmental Affairs travel budget that I just mentioned. There is $50,000 under Intergovernmental Affairs. There is $55,000 under the Ottawa Office. There is $750,000 under the new Business Department. That can provide a lot of travel. Now, that does not count the European office. Supplies for the Ottawa Office is $20,000. That is to start with, because this is May 20. By the time they get the Ottawa Office open they figure they will only need $20,000 to buy the paper, the pens, the pencils and the hi-lighters, and one thing and the other like that; $20,000.

Professional Services for the Ottawa Office is $20,000. What are you going to be getting under $20,000 for professional services in Ottawa? I would like to know. I bet all members on the other side of the House would like to know because they are not going to find out in their caucus room, you can be sure of that.

MR. SHELLEY: You know all about what happens in our caucus room.

MS THISTLE: Absolutely! Yes, I know what happens in your caucus room.

I am sure that the members opposite are delighted that we are having this debate this afternoon because they are getting a lot of information they normally would not get.

Purchased Services for the Ottawa Office, $55,000. I would like to ask the Premier or the Minister of Finance to stand up and tell me how they are going to spend $55,000 for Ottawa. Tell me, who is going to be sitting in that office in Ottawa, sitting on a leather chair and looking out through the window at the Rideau Canal?

MR. JOYCE: Contacting the seven MPs.

MS THISTLE: Yes, sitting in there and wondering if they will put on their skates today and skate down over the Rideau Canal, or perhaps they will go down to Hyde's and have a cocktail. Oh, yes, that is what they will do. A $200,000 salary. They are going to go out and - Purchased Services. What are you going to purchase for $55,000? Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. It is funny now. It is not a bit funny, in fact; $350,000 was what we needed to make the payments on the cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor so everybody who is going through the experience of cancer and needs treatment can come and have their cancer treatment in Grand Falls-Windsor. But, no! That $350,000 was more important to put an office in Ottawa so the Premier, or whoever he is going to put in that office, can sit down there in an office and look out over the Rideau Canal. It will cost the taxpayers of our Province, to start with - this is only the starting figure - $350,000 a year, and we all know that office will be expanding so that within a years time that $350,000 will probably be $500,000.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Okay, thank you, because there is plenty to talk about and I appreciate the extra time.

MR. JOYCE: Can you get any information on HRE to give the backbenchers? They have no money - on HRE. They have no information (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, I am surprised.

I knew it would not be too long before private government members would start to speak out because I can tell you one thing, being on the backbenches and having to be muzzled, not being able to say anything - you can get away with that while you are in the House of Assembly, but I can tell you, when you go out to your district and you have to go to the supermarket, or you have to attend an event in your church, or go anywhere and attend an event, you cannot get away with being quiet then because you have to say what you are going to do for the people who elected you. It is not what your Premier, your leader, wants you to do, or the people in your caucus or your colleagues around the House of Assembly. If you do not speak up for your own people who elected you, you will find yourself on the unemployment - no, you will not be on the unemployment line because, being a Member of the House of Assembly, we cannot collect EI after we are finished, but you will be looking for a job. You will be looking for a job if you do not represent the people who put you here.

I would suggest to all the people on the other side of the House who are out this long weekend, sitting around a campfire, and they are sure to see lots of people - they are sure to see lots of people sitting around a campfire and going through the parks and going through their districts. They cannot hide away. Their faces are well known. People are going to be asking you: What are you going to do about the cancer clinic? What are you going to do about the school board? What are you going to do about the health board? What are you going to do about - I am hearing lately that there is even talk about the closing of other - I just cannot bring myself to say it today, but I can tell you that within the next few days I will make it public what I am hearing, rumours for my district.

I cannot bring myself to say that there could be more possible closures of other facilities. It is awful. Is there any heart left at all, or was there ever any heart in this government? Because the actual social and public safety, the health system, the fabric that keeps us all together as communities in this Province, is broken, badly broken over the past sixty days. I do not care if you look at me from across the House and you grin at me, because if you have any kind of a heart, for people and the way that you are affecting them, you will understand what I am saying and you will agree with it; and, when you go back to your districts, people will confront you with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on leave.

MS THISTLE: I am on leave and I know I can be made to sit down at any moment. I understand that. I am on leave and it is always up to the government, once I get past the fifteen minutes, if they want to sit me down.

I want to talk about another part of the Estimates today, under the Office of the Executive Council. That would be - look at Financial Administration. We have, under Transportation and Communication, $95,000. I would like to know - this is the one for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs - are you saying that you are not going to go up to Labrador, like we always did in the past? This is under Office of Executive Council, Financial Administration. It revolves around the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, and that is a great concern to the members of Labrador.

A promise was made by this new government that they would have an office in Labrador and, judging from the budget I see here today for Transportation and Communications, they are not going to pay attention to Labrador like they promised they would. I think the members in Labrador must get those answers because it is quite evident that we do not have a Cabinet minister from Labrador. If this government are not going to live up to their commitment to have an active office in Labrador, that will be another in a series of broken promises to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Rural Secretariat, now, that is an imaginary department. Rural Secretariat is definitely an imaginary department. It was touted in the Budget to be the fiscal tiger of growth and economic infusion in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. From what I can see here, it is not going to do that. There are no plans. Last night when I questioned the Minister of Government Services, she said in her speech that there was a two-pronged approach to the Budget that was delivered by the Finance Minister on March 30. She said, one side of it was expenditure reductions and the other side of it was growing the economy.

When she finished her speech, I asked her: What are your plans for growing the economy? I asked her that questions and she said: Well, yes, we are going to be growing the economy. We are going to be starting new businesses and so on. She said: The Premier has a new Department of Business and he is going to be operating the new Department of Business, and these are questions you should ask him.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't turn up.

MS THISTLE: He didn't turn up, and he would not reschedule at his convenience so we could question him.

Where is this new Rural Secretariat going to be housed, I wonder? Is that, I wonder, in the vacant spaces by the Occupational Health and Safety? I wonder, is that where that is going? Salaries are going to cost $1.2 million. I wonder, is that where that is going, so they can drive out the Occupational Health and Safety people, and they are going to have to pay rent somewhere else at a greater cost to government?

Under that section, it is going to cost $1.7 million. We do not know where it is going to be, who is going to be appointed to run it, or what they are going to do; but, if we listen to what we saw in the paper recently about the deputy minister, Doug House, he is running this and he is setting the policy and everybody else must be whipped in line because he has a vision for economic growth in this Province and it all belongs on the Trans-Canada Highway right across our Province. Anyone who is outside of that range, forget it. He believes in urban centres, and urban centres can only occur on the Trans-Canada Highway. So, for $1.7 million, he is going to be dealing with the second prong of growing the economy. We are all waiting for that, but I can tell you one thing that this government has done. You had better get another prong, because check on the attitude outside, when he gets outside this Confederation Building. This is a vacuum you are in, in here. This is not the real world at all. Go out in your own districts, out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and when you see the attitude of people, how much they have changed in a matter of a few months.

This time last year, everybody was going about their work and feeling good about their situation. I know in Grand Falls-Windsor everybody was happy, record housing starts, everybody employed. The biggest complaint we had was trying to get enough building materials in to start the new houses. Everybody was feeling good about the prospects of a new cancer clinic being constructed. Everybody was feeling good about the whole situation, and now what do we have? Nothing but devastation. Negativity, that is all we can hear after seven months in government.

Now, tomorrow is a birthday, May 21. May 21 is a birthday of this government, and what have you got to show? Here is a blank sheet of paper. If this government can put anything on this paper and show me that they have made any positive announcements over this past seven months, it would be the biggest surprise I have ever seen. I can see backbenchers agreeing that there is nothing that this government can put on the paper tomorrow when it is their birthday. May 21, seven months in office, there is not one positive thing. There is not one positive thing this government can show for seven months in office. All they can show is devastation. They are destroying as they go, destroying everything that we had, that we could depend on around this Province.

I was at Sobey's last Saturday afternoon in Grand Falls-Windsor and I was picking up a few groceries, and a man came up to me and said: I know you. I said: Do you? He said: Yes, we watches that channel. I cannot believe it. Now, I am not going to tell you what I am, whether I be Tory or whether I be Liberal. I said: No, you do not have to. He said: You know, from what I can see this winter, that crowd should be hove out of office. That crowd should be hove out of office. Boy, I said, I could not agree with you more. I could not agree with you more, because tomorrow is their birthday and they have nothing, nothing, to put on this sheet of paper that they have done - not a thing, nothing.

Now, the Women's Policy Office is a very important office because women must make their concerns known to government. I am glad that we have a lot of women in this Legislature because women can usually put forward the social issues. Sometimes men may not be quite as aware of all the various concerns in our society that women can sometimes bring to government and make known. There have been great advances in the social agenda since we have been fortunate in our Legislature to have so many women elected, and I am very pleased with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I only wish that we had more women, because the health and welfare of our people in this Province is number one. Not like the Minister of Finance when he, in his Budget, said the very most important thing in his Budget was to balance the books. All he thought about was the money. The last thing was to ensure that our health and education systems meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That was not his first commitment.

If you do not have healthy people in this Province, and you look after their social needs and their public safety, you can forget about balancing the budget; because, if they are not healthy, their health care is not maintained and their communities are not maintained, you can forget about growing the economy because that will not happen. This Finance Minister, his only agenda was to balance the books. Forget about the people who elected him, the people he is supposed to represent, because that did not matter. Balance the books is the first thing on his agenda. The strange part about it, the only part he is going to balance is the cash, the cash deficit. Do you know something? He has a big hand already in balancing that because he has $60 million from the public sector workers. He got that, and he also got the money in the Budget that he had put aside for all of the people who were working but now they are going to be laid off. He has that money too.

He is going to have extra money, so on March 31, 2005, he is going to be able to report a drop in the deficit, I would imagine, of $150 million, because he has the public sector salaries while they were out on strike for twenty-eight days. He put all the people in here in the Budget, and it looked like he was going to continue to employ them, but he had an idea in the back of his mind that he was going to lay them off. Now he has all of those salaries saved, every one of them, and he is planning to take out, over the next four years, 6,000 people through attrition and layoffs. You do not have to be a genius to know that you could have no problem to balance the cash deficit of this Province if the only thing you do is lay off people.

Do you know something? He might be sadly mistaken. He might be sadly mistaken, because the leader of this Province and the Finance Minister are only doing one thing. They are only laying off people, closing down government offices, shutting down rural communities, bringing hardship on the people. If he is going to grow the economy, based on all those cuts and devastation to the people in this Province, who is going to be interested enough to start a business, and who are they going to sell their products to?

Last night, in Government Services Estimates, I asked the minister, under the fees section - there was a heading there for reassessments for getting your licence. I said to her, how many of those do you normally do in the run of a year? She said, well, last year, I think, we did about 183.

Last year, they did about 183 and they were charging zero for that. This year they are charging $100. Now, who are the people who get a medical reassessment to get their licence done? Who are they? I will tell you how they are. They are senior citizens of this Province, who have probably medical problems that might suspend their licence for awhile and then they have to go and be reassessed after their medical condition improves. They are also disabled people who might need to be reassessed as their medical condition changes.

At 183 people, that is $18,300. You are taking $20,000 now - we all know that our population is getting older, so how many is it going to be this year? How many is it going to be this year that you are going to take, of our senior citizens who need to have their licence reassessed through medical situations? What a thing to do, for seniors who have contributed all their life to the running of this Province, and you are going to charge them $100 now, to go and get their licence reassessed for medical purposes. Shame, shame.

I also asked her, for the first time they are going to be charging for death certificates. I said to her: Are you just going to charge for the one death certificate? Because we know that when you settle an estate, for insurance purposes, you might need as high as ten. Yes, she said, sometimes they need fifteen. Most insurance companies want the original death certificate. Most insurance companies, banks and so on, want the official death certificate from the Province. She said: Yes, sometimes, to different agencies, we have to give as high as fifteen. I said: Is that $25, now, for fifteen? No, she said, that is $25 each for death certificates when someone dies, if there is going to be an estate settled. That can amount to quite a bit of money. Usually, that is an attack on the senior citizens of our Province. You are going to get them on the medical assessments, $100 each, and then if they need death certificates you are going to charge them for each and every one.

This is what Government Services are going to do, in raising their fees and getting more money, so that can put it in the pot to run this government, so that they can have an office in Ottawa and they can have an office in Europe. They can have offices all over the country but they can't look after the people in our very own Province. That is what they cannot do. There are a lot of questions to be asked about Executive Council, and I hope the Minister of Finance will stand on his feet and give me those answers, because the people of the Province need those answers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Fuel Pricing Commissioner. There was a very important discovery made last night in Government Services. The minister's own press release said this, on 18 May 2004, the minister's very own press release that came over the government wires. She said: We are integrating the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission with the Public Utilities Board to improve efficiency. Now, she believes that. Is she saying now, that it is not an efficient operation that is running with the Pricing Commission Office in Grand Falls-Windsor? She says: Combining all of that will reduce the cost charged back to the oil companies. You are concerned about the fact that the oil companies are paying too much to have this commission in place.

She said: Ultimately those savings will be passed on to the consumer. Now, do you believe in Santa Claus? I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services: Do you believe in Santa Claus? My goodness! She believes that integrating the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission with the Public Utilities Board will improve efficiency - for who? - and it will reduce the cost charged back to the oil companies. You are concerned about the oil companies when they are whacking us over the head with the increases in the gas prices. You are worried about the oil companies! You think in your own heart and soul that they will pass that on to the consumer! What a joke. I would suggest you check and see who is writing your news releases for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Absolutely! It is all money.

Later on in that same Estimates Committee I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Government Services -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if the member is aware or not, but today there is a rule in the Legislature called relevancy. Today we are debating - estimates for Government Services have been passed. Now, you can make reference to it and all that sort of stuff, but today we are debating the Legislature, Executive Council, and other aspects, if we get to it. I have listened for the past fifteen minutes under - I believe the member is operating under leave, is she?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I am withdrawing it right now, first of all.

Government Services has nothing to do with Executive Council. So, there it is. All the estimates on Executive Council are here to be debated this afternoon. The Committee met on Government Services, so let's get on with debate in Executive Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I am just questioning if it is a point of order. First of all, I do not think it is, but within that point of order the Government House Leader made a comment that he was withdrawing leave - just two comments.

First of all, if the Government House Leader was displeased in some way with the relevance of the member's comments he certainly could have just said: Leave withdrawn. That would have ended it right there, without trying to make an issue of the relevancy. We are talking here about the Office of the Executive Council, which is the major office of the government in the sense that it pretty well controls the central agency. The major ministers in Cabinet are on that Executive Council. Pretty well everything, as far as I have seen in this House, that can be related in terms of relevancy to what we are talking about here this afternoon. Now, if the Government House Leader was displeased with what the member was saying he could have simply said: Leave withdrawn; which he has indeed done.

We have been dealing here pretty co-operatively with the leave issue since we have started the sessions, and to do it in that context of: I withdraw because I do not like what she is saying or whatever, that is not how we have normally operated. We had a situation here yesterday, or the day before yesterday - the Government House Leader was not in the House at the time, but we had a situation where the Premier walked into the House during a response by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace to a ministerial statement. Normally, how we have conducted ourselves, if somebody is giving a ministerial statement or responding to the same, there has been no question with the leave issue in terms of cluing up and so on. The Premier walks into the House the other day - the Government House Leader was not here, there was an Acting Government House Leader. In fact, who had consented to leave, and the Premier walks in and he is not even in his chair, not even to his chair, it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a petition.

MR. PARSONS: No, I correct the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he would make his point of order.

MR. PARSONS: No, I corrected the Acting Government House Leader. It was not a petition. It was a response. The Premier walked in, he was not even to his chair, he just walked through the door. He had not heard what was going on or what it was in response to. He just walks through, and the member here said: Leave to clue up? The Government House Leader had given it, and the Premier says: No leave. The point I am trying to make is that we have had very good co-operation here. It is usually left to the House Leaders to decide when or when not there will be leave. Albeit any member can do it, but usually the House Leaders have been left with that prerogative. Yet, that is not what we have seen. We have been doing great and maybe we should continue to be co-operative in that manner. It has worked, and I do not see any point in changing that process right now. I respect the fact that the Government House Leader has withdrawn leave. That is his total right to do it - him, in particular, being the House Leader here. I think he could do it by saying: Leave withdrawn. He does not have to use the suggestion of relevance, which I think is not relevant - his comment - to do that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

To that same point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, I appreciate the Opposition House Leader's point, but I do not necessarily appreciate the lecture overtones that go with it.

The fact of the matter is, 9:30 last night the committee concluded. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans was there and had no more questions. We are debating Executive Council today, which is a completely different set of estimates than Government Services and Lands, than Natural Resources, than Conservation, than Human Resources and Labour. It is Executive Council. Different subheads dealing with Intergovernmental Affairs, a whole bunch of different subheads. So, the rule of relevancy, Mr. Chairman, is a valid point that I am raising to you as the Chair, and I am asking you to rule upon it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has heard the arguments, and the Chair has listened to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans as well. While some of her comments has being far ranging and outside the realm of Executive Council, the Chair is not clear whether - being a Budget Debate, and talking about money, I suppose that we can tie it into just about any conversation that we want to bring up.

The Chair would like to ask members of the House if they would contain their remarks to the relevancy of the topic being discussed, because the whole of the Budget will be discussed right here in this House. When we go to the particular head that is being called, then that would be the time to raise those comments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will try to address many of these points. I took note on the particular items there that she asked questions on. I know she had a fair opportunity, I think it is fifteen minutes back and forth. We did give her forty minutes - which is pretty generous I think - to make points. You have to ask the Chair to count. I do not keep track of time, but it is roughly forty minutes. I think it was pretty decent when you only had fifteen. I do not intend to go forty minutes. If I need to get up again to answer any questions, I will certainly do it.

I want to indicate that on Executive Council overall, the member made reference to: we are spending more and we are not cutting down, downsizing and so on. I think the first thing I should say is that when you look at the budget of Executive Council, that is being debated before the House right now, last year there was $33,837,700 budgeted in that area. This year we are budgeting $30,714,100. Mr. Chairman, that is a $3,123,600 reduction from what was projected last year. That is a 9.2 per cent decrease in the budget of Executive Council. I think that, to me, is a significant show of restraint within Executive Council.

To find that amount you look at the last page of Executive Council. Just do the comparisons and divide it in, as I did, and that is the number it came to, minus 9.2 per cent when you compare budget versus budget. You have to compare actual versus actual, budgets versus budgets. That is basically what you have to do. The appropriate thing next year is to compare actual versus actual to the previous year. We have to compare apples and apples. We cannot be comparing two different things.

The member did indicate and said that when we were in Opposition for a number of years we talked about Government House. I know, Mr. Chair, there have been people pass some comments on Government House in the past, I might add.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: I know, by agreement, we can operate differently. Would the minister agree to have a question asked about what he just said, just for clarification? Not to debate it, but just for clarification?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I finish my time I will take notes of things, and when I get back again - so that we are not jumping up and down every minute on questions. I certainly will do that. I made notes on specific things asked by the hon. member, and I will do that. It is a more orderly fashion. The Chair then does not have to be, every fifteen or twenty seconds, recognizing somebody. That is, I think, within the Standing Orders set down by this House.

Government House, for your information, if you look at it there it is showing a reduction in Government House of roughly 9 per cent. A reduction in the budget of Government House that is established here. That is here for all to see. Hopefully, next year you will see what the final number is. It is our goal and our aim to come in on budget.

We considered numerous things when we set the budget here of government. We looked at departmental statistics that gives us our projected GDP growth, our retail sales, our housing and all the economic factors that would impact on revenue items of government. Then we looked at expenditure items. We have a little more control over them than revenue items. Of course, in Finance we dealt with some of those areas and I am sure we will deal with other ones under the CFS when that is debated here in the House. Overall, there was a 9 per cent reduction on Government House.

The member did ask a question on the Premier's Office. That is in section 2.1.01 in our Estimates. Overall, in this specific area - and she made reference to $1,487,800 in a lot of these areas. In particular, in the minister's office you might notice, and other areas - there were certain positions when government changed that did not get filled right away. That would account - if you look at $1,684,200 was $1,487,000, some positions did not get filled immediately in the transition, and therefore it came in lower, but you have to go back and budget for these positions that you carry in your office. The figure you see there, if you look at IGA last year, there was roughly $233,000 budgeted last year that is not there this year, that is now being carried out by the Premier. Overall, in this area, you can see in the budgeted amount there is a decrease of $128,000 less budgeted in the Premier's Office over what was budgeted in total in these specific areas last year. Keep in mind that there were inflationary increases because of salary increases overall, all through the public service last year. Some increases did not kick in until part way during the year, I think in July in some cases, some in September, or whenever the period of a particular contract expired. These have to be built in. This will be the first year we will be getting the full salary impact of a full year's salary on people in the public service who were impacted by these.

So, there is a reduction in Executive Council of over $3 million, a 9.2 per cent reduction in the whole envelope for Executive Council, and a reduction in total in the Premier's Office of $128,000, including the annualizations into that, which would be significantly more when you look at all of these factors.

Another question that the member asked was dealing with Cabinet Secretariat. In that specific area she made reference on the salaries, wondering why. Well if you look at the total area in Executive Council, she asked on 01. Salaries, the amount that was budgeted last year was $885,800 and this year it is $856,900. You can see that there is $29,000 less in salaries budgeted in that area, despite increased annualization for the compensation, the 15 per cent over three years. That is a reduction.

She asked the question why, in 05. Professional Services, have we gone from $32,700 budgeted up to $327,600, in one specific area, under professional services. If you look at that specific area here, you will see there is an amount budgeted in that area of $300,000. It is a one-time item that is put in there under line item 05 for a program renewal process; $300,000 is dedicated. Without that, it would be back to its traditional $32,700, so that accounts for the difference.

If you remove that from the total overall, take that $300,000 out of there, we would be back to $1,008,500, which would be considerably less, roughly about an 8 per cent increase over last year, in spite of it - actually, more than that. It would probably be, if we just subtracted there the $300,000, we are down over $100,000, about $140,000 on $ 1,100,000, so that is a significant amount. That is over an 8 per cent decrease, it would be, except for this one-time item that is there. That has been reduced in Executive Support.

The member also asked a question on the next area, and that is dealing with - I think she asked the question, I believe, under 2.2.02. I think that was the last of her questions on 2.2.02, if I am correct. She can correct me there on the Economic and Social Policy Analysis. She had a question there also. I think she asked a question. Overall, if you look at that area there under Economic and Social Policy Analysis, the budget last year was $474,800. This year we budgeted $460,100. That is a decrease over last year's budget in spite of having to look at salary increases, ‘annualizations' on top of that. That would even make the decrease more significant on top of that.

Subhead 2.2.04, I think, was the next question that was asked on that item, and that would bring us to Advisory Councils on Economic and Social Policy. In that specific area, there was $152,000 last year budgeted and $142,600 this year. That is a decrease of 6.2 per cent in this specific area we budgeted over last year. Of course, $55,900 was spent last year.

Overall, in 2.2.05. she asked, in Protocol on Salaries, there was $119,400 budgeted, and this year $120,900. It is about $1,500 more, but if you want to look at what is spent - we have to compare what is budgeted versus budget. If we want to look at what was spent, $165,000 last year and we budgeted $120,000 so that is over $44,000 less on a $165,000. If you want to look at that basis, that is between 25 per cent and 30 per cent less in that area budgeted this year over what was spent last year. Once again, I do not like to compare what was spent to what was budgeted, because you have compare apples with apples, but the member asked that and made reference to it there so I wanted to respond. So there is a 27.2 per cent reduction in the Protocol office for protocol expenditures in this Budget over last year. We are proposing 27.2 per cent reduction. That is a fairly significant reduction.

In the next area, she asked a question on 2.3.01., Minister's Office in Intergovernmental Affairs. In Intergovernmental Affairs, it was budgeted last year $293,800 and this year it is $50,000. We are projecting a reduction in the office of Intergovernmental Affairs of 82.9 per cent reduction. In other words, we are proposing to spend just over one-sixth of what was spent in that office last year, and that is primarily because the Premier will be the minister there so the same amount of expenditure will not be required. We only put in one specific item in that particular budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: None, basically - one. Transportation and Communication was budgeted the same as last year because the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, or any costs associated with those types of matters, we budgeted the same as last year, but the overall budget is down by 82.9 per cent in the office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MS THISTLE: How much for purchased services (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the member, there are no purchased services budgeted.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That was last year. There was none budgeted. This is the Minister's Office. Executive Support is different, of course, as the member is aware. The Minister's Office - that does not mean because the Premier takes over that job as minister that everybody in the department disappears. If we did that, the member would be the first one up on her feet saying: What are you going to do, eliminate all the executive and everybody in the department, in Intergovernmental Affairs? Obviously not, because there are a lot of significant things happening at that level between the different levels of government. It is important that the staff, the expertise and the services be provided there.

In subhead 2.3.01, the total, I will just say again before I move off of this, we are seeing an 82.9 per cent reduction in that specific area.

Executive Support, I think, the member also asked. She made reference to it that time. I will just comment on Executive Support. I think that is the last one she asked on this area, I do believe. If not, I will certainly - when she asks other questions - stand and answer them. Under that specific area she said, why have we gone, under Purchased Services, from $27,800, I think she said, up to $277,800? That is because there is a one-time cost this year because we are required to host the New England Governors and the Eastern Canadian Premiers, and that is $250,000 extra. That only happens every several years. I am not sure of the number of years it happens, but it certainly happens every several years and we are required to host that this year. That is a one-time cost. If you took that one-time cost out and compared, without the salary annualization, there would be less money spent in Executive Support in that department than was budgeted before, significantly less; in fact, 25 per cent less than was spent last year in that specific area. It is significantly less. We are showing considerable restraint across the whole of Executive Council, close to, we will say, a 10 per cent reduction - 9.2 per cent, to be exact - reducing it close to one-tenth of what was spent in that whole specific area last year of Executive Council. The annualization, of course, which was a 2.5 per cent thing, had to kick in in the last phase of that.

I am not sure if the member - I think she was making reference to - yes, I do have it noted here. She did make reference to 01 which is Executive Support Salaries. I commented on that generally, and I will comment on the specific salary part she asked the question on. The salary part we can see in the Estimates under that specific area, was: spent last year, $444,700 and now it is only $278,500. In fact, we are spending $166,200 less in Salaries of Executive Support compared to last year on an expenditure of $444,000. That is a significant amount of money. That is close to a 40 per cent reduction in salaries within that specific area. I think that is certainly a significant reduction there, and I am sure the member could make note, to the specific question she asked me on that.

Overall, I can comment on some other areas, the next one, while I am on my feet, then I could certainly sit down. If there are other questions to be asked I will take note of these. I will just finish with this one, the Policy Analysis and Coordination, which is 2.3.03. In this area, last year there was $723,600 budgeted. This year we are budgeting 3.1 per cent less in this specific area, Policy Analysis and Coordination, over last year.

We can see a significant reduction in Executive Council, generally. We are down 9.2 per cent. We have significant reductions in expenditures and restraint. A part of the reason why expenses were down last year is because there was a change, number one, and, secondly, our fiscal restraint brought last year's Budget in significantly under what it would normally have been on the trend it went.

I could use an example, just in my office, in Treasury Board, where we were on a path that we would have over-expended. There were two executive assistants to the former minister and two constituency assistants in the office, when I came in. That is under Executive Council, under Treasury Board that is listed here. It is very relevant. It is exactly what we are doing. In that area I now have one EA and I have one constituency assistant, compared to double by the former minister in the department. That is the type of restraint, Madam Chairperson, we are showing here in government. That is why the numbers in the Budget are down significantly from the numbers that were budgeted and the costs that were incurred by the former administration.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to just make a few comments with respect to these Estimates. I am sure we will get to do many more, because there are many things in these Estimates that we need to examine in some considerable detail, particularly as it relates to the whole of the Executive Council.

There probably won't be a speech this year about abolishing Government House. There may not be, because there is one member here who is well known for making that speech every year. I am not sure if he is going to make it this year or not. I can tell you, Madam Chair, as a matter of policy and principal and so on, because I do not ever hesitate to tell people what I believe in, that, in fact, I believe if we had the political will in the whole country, all of us in Canada could save some considerable amounts of money by severing the ceremonial ties with the mother country. That is a long time ago and that is great history, but that is the past, and it is costing a lot of money to have a Governor General in Canada. We just saw it on the federal scene, some $15 million for a trip to Russia for the Governor General and some people. I do not think Canadians think that is the best use of their money.

In this heading that we are debating today, we have our own Government House - and I will not make the speech, that that million and some odd dollars should disappear. If we had the will - you see what it takes is the political will to change the constitution. This Legislature, by the way, unanimously voted that we do those kinds of things last year, for the fishery, to get control over the fishery. Then the Premier changed his mind about it because the other premiers were not in support of it.

I traveled across Canada asking for support for that, so we could have a constitutional change, if necessary, so that Newfoundland and Labrador could get control of its fisheries. We had an all-party committee and everybody was going to support it. The Premier in Alberta supported it. The Premier in Ontario did not, he did not think it was the right time, the Premier in Quebec did not, the Prime Minister of the country did not want it, so all of a sudden, our current day Premier does not think it is a good idea anymore. He voted for it in the House. He changed his mind now, by the way, and says: Let's do the co-operative vote. We see where that is getting us. He went over to Brussels there last week with the co-operative approach, the diplomatic approach, and come back and told the media: Boy, it was great. They treated me like a head of state. Because of my influence and because of what I said, they are going to let the Canadian inspectors on to the Portuguese boat when it comes into the harbour, only to find out before the day was over, that the boat docked and they were not allowed on. Then he admits in the House in Question Period: Oh, my diplomatic approach is not working.

I digress a little bit, because I was talking a little bit about Government House. The exact estimate for the total operation of Government House is here, and I do not think it has been talked about at all today. Government House is half a million dollars, $580,000 last year, $529,200 budgeted this year. The person who occupies the office, by the way, is doing a great job, and is a very good personal friend of mine, and, I would suggest, is one of the best Lieutenant-Governors we ever had. He has already established that reputation, and is opening up the Government House to the public. He is traveling around the Province having functions where they never been held before. If we are going to have it, I would suggest we do it the way the current Lieutenant-Governor is doing it.

I am willing, if others are willing to join into it, to have a debate whether it should exist or not. It is no good for us to try and abolish it in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not fund it, because it is all part of the Canadian Constitutional tie-in to Great Britain, the motherland and so on.

That is not what I really want to talk about, but I know in lots of the ten-minute ones I will probably get up five or six times, because there are five or six different headings over the next several days that I would like to make some comments about. We are going to support the Government House part of it. There are some modest reductions in that which is understandable, and they will do a good job with that money.

I have to register though, as a start, Madam Chair, my disappointment again with the presentation and the representation just made by the Minister of Finance, when he talked about a 9.2 per cent reduction and then he said a 10 per cent reduction: Because we have been so fiscally responsible and so on. He says: We are showing great leadership and we are doing here in the Executive Council. But, it is what he does not say again. I am sure that is what he said to the caucus, if he said anything, because he likely did not say anything to the caucus. They are probably hearing that for the first time, because they certainly - we found out today in Question Period, that the caucus did not have this document. They did not see it, as a matter of fact - it is obvious - did not see it until we secured it under the Freedom of Information. When the Liberal Opposition asked for this document under the Freedom of Information, when we got the covering letter, which is right here, from the Clerk from the Executive Office, from Mr. Thompson - it says, it details the district by district breakdown on Budget initiatives, as you requested, and I have also copied the document to Mr. Jack Harris of the New Democratic Party. Guess who else he copied it too? To Mr. Hodder, the Government Caucus Chair.

Now, you would not think, under freedom of information, you would have to copy this to the Government Caucus Chair if they all had it. They never had it, a document with district by district details. We had to apply for it under Freedom of Information. It took us a month to get it. Out of courtesy the Clerk of the Council, would works for the elected government, decided to send a copy to the Caucus Chair for the government, because they did not have it. We asked questions today about that and they did not have it.

In looking at the headings that we just talked about, the Minister of Finance again has been a huge disappointment to the people of the Province and a huge disappointment to me personally, because again it is what he did not say. For the first time today, members of their own caucus are hearing that the Executive Council budget is down $3 million. It was $33 million last year, he said, down to $30 million. That was 9.2 per cent, and then he said, that is pretty close to a 10 per cent reduction by us, because we are cognizant of the fiscal situation. We deliberately looked at all this and we took it down by 10 per cent.

Guess what he did not tell you about the two biggest parts of that 10 per cent reduction. He is making notes now and paying close attention, because he wants to tell the truth, I am sure of that. He told part of it a little while ago, and now we will see if the next time he gets up, having made a note of these comments, he might tell the rest of the truth. What he did not say, Madam Chair, was this, that over $1 million of that reduction, that $3 million that he just talked about - as a matter of fact I will give you the exact number. It is in heading 2.3.05 in the Executive Council Estimates that we are now looking at, and in that particular one, 2.3.05 on page 18, guess what the heading is? The Royal Commission On Renewing And Strengthening Our Place In Canada. Guess how much money is budgeted for it this year? Anybody know? The Member for Gander, do you know?

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the (inaudible) Roger, can't you read?

MR. GRIMES: No, no. I am checking to see how much the Member for Gander has studied his own Budget, that he is going to stand up and vote for. He should know what it is. Everybody on the other side should know what it is. Is the Royal Commission On Renewing And Strengthening Our Place In Canada going to operate in this next budget year? No. Therefore, how much do you think is in the Budget for it? Zero this year. Now, did it operate last year, Madam Chair? Let's do a little fundamental thing like we are in school now. Was it functioning last year? Yes, it was. Did it cost some money to run the thing last year? Yes, it did. How much did it cost? It costs $1,195,000. Of course, this year, if you follow the Minister of Finance, who did not bother to tell anybody that, there was $1,195,000. He said: Do not compare the actuals. That is a fair exercise for next year. Compare the budget to the budget. Well, guess what was budgeted for the Royal Commission last year when it was actually operating? One million, one hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars. Guess how much is rightfully budgeted for this year, when it has finished its job? Zero. Now, there is a reduction of $1,195,000.

The Minister of Finance just stood up and tried to make all of us in this Legislature, and anyone else listening in TV land, believe that was a conscience decision made by a government exercising restraint to reduce the budget by $1,195,000, that we had some tough choices to make, brother. We had some really tough choices to make. Now, I know it was some tough to reduce the Budget by $1,195,000 for something that was in operation last year, it has completed its work and it is not going to operate this year. That is why it is so disappointing. That is why he has, Madam Chair, no credibility with us. That is why he has less credibility every single day with the people of the Province when they see that kind of a performance. He stood up and said: We had tough decisions to make. We reduced the Budget deliberately.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that is time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Madam Chair. I am sure there will be an intervening speaker. I am going to be back many times. I do not need leave right now. I will come back and speak again. Maybe my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans might like to make a few more comments in the intervening period.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I am glad to see that I have another opportunity to talk about Executive Council, and I want to continue on the same debate that the Leader of the Opposition just talked about and brought to light. I intended to do that myself when I was denied - of course, I was on, I suppose, extended leave and I was on the good graces of the Government House Leader. Of course, I was denied leave, but I know that I had gone over my time.

It is very interesting that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has left the impression, through his speech a few minutes ago, that they have made great strides in cutting the budget of Executive Council, when, in fact, he neglected to mention - whether it was intentional or by accident - that the program that was being done, and a very good program it was, a Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada, that was being done, last year, as the Leader of the Opposition so rightly pointed out, it was $1.2 million that was being spent. As a result of this year, that Commission being finished their work, and good work it was, it does not have to be included in the Budget this year.

I would suggest to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that it is not necessary to go to great lengths in trying to make a case for going through great hardship and reducing the budget of Executive Council, when we know full well that -

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you want me to answer that now?

MS THISTLE: No, I do not need the Minister of Finance to answer any questions. I have my ten minutes and I intend to use the ten minutes. You will get your ten minutes when the time comes. I do not need -

AN HON. MEMBER: I could have gotten up and (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, I have ten minutes. It is part of the Legislature that we will have intervening speakers and my time is now. You will get your time when the time comes.

We have lots of backbenchers on the government side who are hearing information for the very first time today. I think that is beneficial, because it is quite apparent from what we have seen over the past little while that they are not informed as well as they should be.

A very important function of Executive Council is Treasury Board. A very important function of Executive Council, of course, is Treasury Board. Every decision with regard to spending of money within government goes before Treasury Board. Usually - and I am sure that is the practice today - there would be a number of Cabinet ministers sitting on Treasury Board, and every decision that comes from all departments of government that requires funding would come to the Treasury Board and that is when Cabinet ministers will make their play to the minister, the President of Treasury Board, and hope that they will get the nod from Treasury Board to send on that recommendation further until it reaches Cabinet. Then, they can have a larger discussion around the Cabinet table and finally a decision will be made on whether or not a certain request will be honoured.

Madam Chairwoman, I would like to ask about some of the headings under Treasury Board Secretariat that have come to light. I am particularly interested in Budgeting and Systems on page 22, subhead 3.1.02. It is under the heading of Information Technology. Information Technology is a very important part of government making sure that we have accurate and up-to-date information that can be passed along to the users of the system and also to the public at large. I would certainly be interested in knowing why the revenue is down. That would be subhead 3.1.02.02, Revenue - Provincial, down to $118,000. Also, I want to know what the expenditure of over - well, almost a $600,000 increase in Information Technology. I would certainly be interested in knowing that.

Then, if we look further down in Treasury Board, I would be interested in knowing, under subhead 3.1.03, Employee Relations - the Minister of Finance has been quick on his feet to say that there was a predicted amount in a budget last year; for instance, this one, Professional Services under 3.1.03.05. Last year in the budget it was predicted that under that category $200,000 would be spent. Under 3.1.03.05, Professional Services, under the heading of Employee Relations in Treasury Board Secretariat, it was predicted that $200,000 would be spent in that category when, in fact, there was only $105,000 spent. Why, now, this year, would this present new government who is operating under fiscal restraints, be predicting that they need, and actually asking for that amount of money, $125,400. Purchased Services, under the same heading, 3.1.03.06, last year it was forecast that $32,700 would be needed; but, in actual fact, $40,000 was spent, and today they are hoping that this Budget will be approved and they are looking for $72,700 for Purchased Services. I would certainly be interested in hearing from the Minister of Finance why that increase. I would like to know that.

Still continuing with Treasury Board, Opening Doors is a wonderful program, I have to say, after being the President of Treasury Board. Opening Doors is a program that helps people with disabilities get retrained and get back into the workplace and get working again. This is under a federal-provincial agreement and, over the past number of years that this particular program has been in effect, many disabled persons have gotten back to work. It is one of the programs that I am really proud of, and I am sure everyone in this House are really proud of. Many of us have gone to see Mr. Jim McDonald, who runs the program, and have asked him for assistance in helping some of our disabled constituents find employment. That is a very good program. I am sure we all want to see that particular program continued.

I notice that there were Salaries budgeted last year for $2,699,000 for that particular program but only $2,298,000 was used. I do not know if there are positions in that particular office that are not filled and this year you are looking at filling those positions. If that is the case - because I know the salary budget has gone up in that particular area. If the Minister of Finance can let me know exactly what positions those are and where they are located, they probably are in the Confederation Building, I would expect. They must have been vacant positions that were not filled and now you intend to fill the, but I would be interested in knowing that because that is one area that every one of us, I am sure, can support.

The other one is French Language Services, and that has been a great program as well for employees of provincial government to have an opportunity to learn a second language. French Language Services, this is paid mostly by federal money. In fact, the majority of the money is federal money, but many people within our employ have been able to take French as a second language and it has been a great benefit to this government and to themselves personally for conducting their work. That is definitely an area that we all support.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I will just address a few of the references made there and try to answer those questions that were asked. She did make a reference that there was money spent on the Royal Commission. The reason we could be down - we are down over $3 million in Executive Council. One of the indications, I think was mentioned, was that the Royal Commission is no longer going to be up and running this year. That is one of the reasons why we might see - some of the reasons why there is less. Obviously, I will say to the member, yes, that is one of the reasons it is down but you also have to look at other reasons why it is higher because of that. Cancelling out that seven hundred and some thousand -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you look at the budget, $747,800 last year overall. Yes, there was a budgeted amount overall of $1,195,000 of which $747,800 was expended. Also, I want to mention, in that area also there is an Ottawa Office which was not there last year, $350,000. There is Program Renewal, $300,000. That was not there, but that is there this year. We are hosting the New England Governors and the Eastern Premiers, that is $250,000. All of these add up to $900,000 new expenditures that were not there. They just about cancelled out. Still we are going to be down $3 million. In spite of these cancelling out items, we are down $3 million. Slightly over 9 per cent from what we were earlier.

You cannot just look at one side of the coin. You have to balance it out because we have added in three significant areas. The Ottawa Office we hope will be very positive. Program Renewal in government to look at efficiency in government. That is needed. Programs of relevance - to host the New England Governors is a standard rotational thing which happens to be our turn. That is important in relations. Next year it is somewhere else and they will incur those costs. So, we cannot ignore that.

The member also mentioned 3.1.03. I think I heard her referencing Treasury Board. I will just run through the Treasury Board Secretariat quickly too because that is an area that I am directly involved in as the president responsible for that Secretariat. In that area, under Executive Support, obviously you will notice in the Minister's Office there is nothing. Eliminated. The cost of the minister's office, that is gone. We are not including a minister's office cost. Last year there were costs in the minister's office for that and in Finance. That is eliminated.

In 3.1.01; you look at the cost in Executive Council last year. We have a 39.1 per cent reduction in Executive Support within the office for last year; in the Treasury Board Secretariat, Executive Support. Under the Budgeting division, you can see the Budgeted last year was $6.8 million and this year the expenditure is $7.1 million. There are a couple of reasons. One, there are costs associated with budget preparations that are normally there, but we came in a bit lower last year because of government fiscal restraint measures we enacted after we took office.

Also, if you look under IT. The IT budget is up by several hundred thousand this year, and the reason for that - I could give the member some indications why. We developed a new information system, upgrading and maintaining infrastructure, like application support and development, $1.358 million. IT communications, IT protection government wide, Microsoft Master Licence Agreement. We have Novell Master Licence Agreement, Anti-virus Master Licence Agreement. A whole host of costs that we have that are out of there. Cyber security auditing (inaudible). Those types of things are things that were costing the system that make up this number, and still we have a budget that is very marginally changed from last year and annualization of salaries - you could look at that - would end up making up almost the whole difference there in that. We have significant restraint that is showing in that area.

The next area in Treasury Board that the member made reference to is - she mentioned - I can touch on Employee Relations while I am skipping through that area. That is in 3.1.03. Overall, in Employees Relations there is a reduction in that area of 4 per cent.

In 3.1.04, I will make reference to that, because she specifically then asked on 05. and 06. In 3.1.04, if you look at the total amount in that area, Strategic Human Resource Management and Development, we are budgeting a 10.1 per cent reduction from the budgeted amount of last year, in that specific area.

In 3.1.05, Opening Doors program, she asked a question. That is one area that did not, basically, come under the freeze. We indicated we are going to use our full complement that has traditionally been budgeted in the Opening Doors program; $2.345 million last year. We are budgeting a 3.1 per cent increase this year, a marginal increase, basically an inflationary cost. You could look at each line item there and you can see there are no significant variations in any of these except the salary amount is up a bit higher. In that program, we believe, it serves a very useful purpose. It was a hands-off program in the government restraint area, because of the significance of allowing people to make adjustments with different levels of abilities to be able to enter in that. We looked at a budgetary decision this year, that that program is not going to be affected. I am delighted to say that helps people. A lot of people have come into government through this program, very valuable contributions, and it is an excellent opportunity to be able to, at least in some way, try and level the playing field for people who have faced challenges in their lives. I am pleased to announce that that program is one that is being continued in its full effect.

Questions were asked under French Language Services, and, as you can see here in the budget, in the Estimates, the costs of this program are recovered through a significant extent, almost completely. Last year, in fact, because of a carry-over, there was $25,900 more received, basically, then was spent, because there was a carry-over from the previous year, as you can see. This year, it will cost about $116,600, of which $453,600 of that is federal revenue and another $50,000 provincial. That program is almost 100 per cent, or a significant amount of that. It is close to it, up 80 per cent or 90 per cent some years - always in that particular range covered under recovery, primarily from a federal source. That is a good program, availability of services here within government.

The member, who was President of Treasury Board before, would be very familiar with some of the programs under Treasury Board, and I do not think I need to elaborate any further. I do not think she got to the point, but, while I am on my feet and there is still a little bit of time, I will make a reference on the next one.

Under Human Resource Planning Initiatives, we have reduced it by 20.7 per cent over last year's Budget in this specific area. If you look at 3.1.08, Office of the Comptroller General, we have reduced the overall cost. Although there will be a qualification on one aspect with Federal Revenue, overall the net cost to us this year is 25.5 per cent less, overall. Outside the revenue side, if we do not even factor in the revenue side and look at the cost to them without offsetting revenue, it is 6 per cent less in that specific area of the Comptroller General. That is the person who deals with - the controller of the accounts basically who adheres to regulations and proper administration, financial administration and aspects that go with that.

They are just some of the specific areas here, I think, that show that we have embarked on a fiscally responsible restraint program. We have allowed areas that are needed, like Opening Doors Program, to be able to continue in their full effect, because many people out there have been served well by this program and it allows the people an opportunity to level the playing field and get work within the public service.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, again, just an opportunity for a few more minutes to say how disappointed we are, as the Official Opposition, in terms of the representation that the incredible Minister of Finance keeps making; not incredible in a positive since either. The fact that he would continue to make the arguments, and try to suggest to the people of the Province that they are factual, when we know the difference for sure and I believe, and we believe, that more and more people everyday are coming to the conclusion that you can hardly believe anything the Minister of Finance says. That is a terrible thing, Madam Chair, to have to say, because we would hope that the people of the Province would have confidence in their Premier, and confidence in their Minister of Finance.

What we are sensing is that is does not exist. As a matter of fact, it has evaporated almost completely in seven short months. It is a performance like we are seeing here again today that is leading to the lack of credibility, and the incredulous nature in which people view the Minister of Finance, in particular , and almost as bad for the Premier.

Let me give you a couple of examples again, Madam Chair. Now he wants to talk about something a bit different. Before he said, let's compare apples to apples, let's compare the total budgeted amount for last year to the total budgeted amount for this year; $33 million last year, $30 million this year. He didn't like the fact that I pointed out that over $1 million of that was the fact that there is no Royal Commission. That wasn't any decision for the government to take at all, in terms of exercising restraint or being selective in their decision making. That was done for them. The Royal Commission's job was over. They had all gone home, they had gone back to their other lives, they had submitted their report. There was no need to budget anything for them. So, $1.195 million could come out of the Budget anyway, no matter who was the government. It was going to come out because the function had been completed.

Let me give one other example, because there is something else I want to address in this few minutes, Madam Chair. The other thing he didn't talk about, as well, is this: In looking at these budgets, the $33 million last year was a $33 million amount that the government was going to spend. That is what your Budget says: This is how much you are going to spend. That number of $33 million which is here on the page, Madam Chair, is arrived at by looking at the amount you are going to spend minus any revenue you might be going to take in. Really, last year we were going to spend more than $33 million, but there was some revenue which meant you only had to spend $33 million. This year they are going to spend $30 million and there is some revenue. There is going to be an expenditure, in real fact, of over $30 million, but because there is going to be some money coming back to the government because of the functions that are in this document, then they are really only going to have to be out $30 million.

One of the things that the Minister of Finance conveniently left out again is this, and I will give the reference: In line 3.1.08 under the Comptroller General's Office, maybe he might stand up and explain to us what particular job or function they are going to do in this next year for the Government of Canada. They must have some kind of a project, or some kind of a contract, with the Government of Canada, because this Budget shows that in the coming year there is going to be $925,000 sent to the Minister of Finance from the Government of Canada. Guess how much was there last year? Zero. Because we didn't do a project for them last year. In round numbers, there is another $1 million of the $3 million that he bragged about. He didn't tell anybody, he didn't tell the caucus. They don't know that now. They are looking at me now, Madam Chair, wondering - look in the document yourself. I know you have never looked in there before. Have a look! Have a look in the document. It is right here in front of you, if you ever want to look. Page 25, line 3.1.08, revenues from the federal government this year $925,000. That is money this government does not have to spend. Guess what is in the same line for last year? Zero. There is $2 million accounted for with a minister who wants to stand up and say: Oh, no, we have been prudent. We have been cautious. We have made a conscious decision to take out $3 million worth of things, a 10 per cent reduction, when over $1 million of it was the Royal Commission not functioning. Another million of it, in round numbers, is the fact that they are going to do something for the Government of Canada which is going to get them $1 million that the government did not get last year. Therefore, their overall budget is down by $1 million because someone is going to give it to them, and no one gave it to us last year.

If you look closely, there is another $1 million that he talked about - and I will not take the time right now to go through that, but I will in preparation for our next day. I am sure I will find the other $1 million and then some, and show that this $3 million that he suggests was a great restraint exercise by the government was nothing more than the end of the Royal Commission, some extra money from the Government of Canada that was not there last year, and no real decisions taken by this government in these headings at all, other than some bad ones, Madam Chair.

One of them is this: the fictitious Rural Secretariat. Let me ask the question: Was there a Rural Secretariat last year in the budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: They said no. The Member for Humber Valley said no. No, they said.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. GRIMES: That is right, what? You do not expect there to be one. There wasn't one because that is the Premier's brainchild. He is going to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador, so they created a Rural Secretariat because it was in the Blue Book. It was not in the budget last year because we did not have one. This year you have the Rural Secretariat going to spend $1.7 million. It is on page 20, by the way, in case you want to have your first look at the budget. It is on page 20, I say to the members opposite, who might want to look at it for the first time. Page 20, your brand new Rural Secretariat, $1.7 million.

You would think, because it did not exist last year - there was no Rural Secretariat last year. It is a brand new, right out of the Blue Book creation of the Premier. It never existed before. Going to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the first time ever. As a matter of fact, a press release went out on Budget day - this is not it, but a press release on a piece of paper like this - that said: New initiative of the government, $1.7 million for the Rural Secretariat. So you would think that on this page, on the line for last year, you would expect to find a zero, would you not? Yes, the Member for Trinity North says he is following the lesson. He said, absolutely, there has to a zero because it did not exist last year. Well, guess what is on the line for Rural Secretariat for last year? Two million dollars. Two million. Now, let me explain to people what happened.

There was no Rural Secretariat last year for $2 million. There was not, but I will tell you what there was last year for $2 million. There was a Strategic Social Plan initiated by the Liberal Administration and funded under the Executive Council for $2 million. Now this brand new Rural Secretariat this year, which is cut by $300,000, is really only funding some of the functions of the Strategic Social Plan from last year. They are the same people, by the way. They are sitting over in their offices in the other building next door still awaiting their instructions, because they knew what they were doing when they were working for the Strategic Social Plan, but now they are working for this great Rural Secretariat. They have $300,000 less to work with, which, in my view, is a bad budget decision because the $2 million that we were using for the Strategic Social Plan was not enough.

What they have done is, they have cut the Strategic Social Plan by $300,000 and renamed it a Rural Secretariat and the people are still waiting, seven months later, in the other building wondering who their boss is, wondering who they answer to, wondering what they are supposed to be doing. They knew what they were doing last year. They were improving the social circumstance in the communities all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

By the way, guess where they were making most of the improvements? In the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. So they have renamed the Rural Secretariat this year. Their budget is slashed by $300,000. They have not moved out of their offices since October because nobody knows what they are supposed to do any more.

Madam Chair, I will tell you, the sad part again is that the members of the government caucus - I can tell by the looks on their faces - are hearing that today for the first time ever. That was never, ever explained to the Member for St. John's Centre, that the $2 million used to be the Strategic Social Plan.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Just in an effort to bring some clarity and to provide some information, so maybe it is more of a point of information for the Leader of the Opposition than anything, because there were several times he mentioned today that this is something that members opposite are hearing for the first time, I just wanted to assure him that the look of bewilderment on all of our faces while he is speaking has nothing to do with hearing the information he is talking about for the first time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This ten minutes has expired. I look forward to many more opportunities, because there is much more to say about these headings as we try to inform the members opposite of things that they have not heard before. We might get them to understand their own Budget through this process, yet.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

He asked, I think, on the Office of the Comptroller General, the first point. If he had listened when I got up, what I did say, and I said it clearly, was that there are significant federal revenues, and Hansard will show this. Exclusive of those revenues, I said, we will be showing a reduction of 6 per cent, exclusive of those revenues, federal and provincial. That is what I said when I stood up. I said, if you consider revenues coming in, it is 25.5 per cent.

I made the distinction, and in no way was - the reason for that, what he did not mention, what he failed to mention, too, Madam Chairperson, was that, if you look in the Estimates, it says there are revenues for last year of $131,000. The reason for those revenues of $131,000 in the Estimates is because the money was not received until 2003-2004 for the previous year. That is why it is zero for the previous, in the Budget, but it is $131,000 received in the last fiscal year.

In this fiscal year, there is a reason for that, because it is pertaining to excise tax and there is an increase, actually, in the numbers to be processed because of that. That is why we are going to get a higher revenue there - none budgeted last year, but received, which was a positive indicator on the last fiscal year and reduced our deficit in the last fiscal year by that amount. You can see there in the Estimates $131,000 because it should have been received the year before, or had been anticipated but was not received. That is the explanation for that.

He talked about the Rural Secretariat, I think he made a note. The Rural Secretariat is in 2.6.01. I will comment on what he indicated there. I am prepared - and that is what these Estimates are all about, I say to hon. members in the House. That is what this purpose is about, so members can stand and ask, on this side or on that side: What is this about?

I will indicate, Madam Chairperson, the Rural Secretariat, basically, incorporates the previous Strategic Social Plan. The purpose of that, and the question he asked on this item here is, there is a transition period so we can develop a mandate and a supporting structure to reflect a shifting change from the Strategic Social Plan to a focus on a Rural Secretariat. That is why, because it would mean an abrupt change. There was a maintenance, during this transition year, of change in the structure, in staff and individuals during this transition until the Rural Secretariat's mandate in operations would be clearly defined and it would take on that focus. To have a smooth transition - it would not have been practical to say everybody is out the door and we are going to come in there, because there are many valuable people who work within that area. There are valuable people in government who can contribute. They have input. We want to see a smooth transition.

Madam Chairperson, if we had to scrap the Strategic Social Plan, put everybody out the door and say we are going to look at a Rural Secretariat, they would be the first on their feet complaining about it. They would be standing up complaining. We want to ensure a smooth transition in line with the mandate, the scope, and the structures that are going to be needed to look at the rural aspect of our Province that is so vital to our future. That is the purpose, Madam Chairperson, of that.

There is nothing being hidden. On Budget Day everybody got a copy, everybody got the Estimates. That is what this is about, to come here to this House, to go to committee meetings, to ask questions, to put that through and to look at all aspect s of it. I think it is important to have the opportunity for people to become more knowledgeable about that.

The first time I went to an Estimates Committee meeting I learned an awful lot more than I did by sitting in the House, because it was an opportunity to ask questions, to get answers, to understand these, to study these and to bring out questions in that manner. That is one of the purposes.

They can say what they like. They can say that is why the Budget is down. The Budget is up in some areas because we brought in new initiatives. The Ottawa Office; we have a Rural Secretariat; a Program Renewal Process. We are hosting the Eastern Governors, the United States and the Eastern States. We are hosting - the Eastern Premier is here in our Province. That is a good opportunity, a good showcase. It is an event. It helps us. It helps promote the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to help encourage people to come here and deal with issues of importance between provinces and between different parts of the States that are our neighbours to the south. That is positive here. That is why it is budgeted here, and it is a very important aspect of it.

The Rural Secretariat will identify its mandate, its scope and what it is going to do, and that will happen. That will happen over the course of this year. I am sure at the end of the process, at the end of this year, we will see all of those opportunities when we see things happening here, because it is important to have a focus on rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are some realities that we had to face, Madam Chairperson. We were facing over a billion dollar deficit. We closed off last year at $959 million. That did not happen overnight. That happened with years and years of mismanagement of the people's money. That is why we have a problem. We have to stand and do something on behalf of the Province and the future if we are going to secure it. We have an ever increasing debt load. We have $840 million. The Budget we brought down, Madam Chairperson, shows a deficit of $840 million. It shows a cash shortfall of $362 million. We have to go to the people. We have to go to the markets to borrow. Last year that government never passed its loan bill for borrowing program. We have to bring a loan bill to this House over the next day or two. A bill to borrow for their deficit of last year, for our deficit this year, overall. That is significant and we have to do it. We certainly hope, Madam Chairperson, that we can borrow at low rates so we can reduce our interests; so we can reduce that billion dollar debt servicing cost that we are incurring here in our Province. That is a significant part of the debt in our Province. It is costing us in direct debt payments and cash debt payments $612.5 million in direct payments. Almost $400 million more it is costing, that we have to allocate and accrue for debt on pension funds primarily and other related costs.

The Opposition counts the Consolidated Fund Service. They do not count the sixty-some million dollars that are out in other areas. They completely forget what the hospital borrowed. They forget the Municipal Financing Corporation. We had borrowing under The Rooms. We had borrowing under other areas. There are costs associated with all of these things. We have to do what is responsible and we are going to do what is responsible. We are not going to be deterred from that because the people who put us in this position now feel so guilty about it and trying to cast it across to this side of the House. They played a part in setting us back many years, but we are going to look at a four-year plan where we will turn the corner and eliminate borrowing for new debt. We will only have to borrow to retire older debt and we will turn the corner in the Province then and look straight ahead at an improved future. That is when the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of this Province will be able to see that the future is bright in our Province.

In the meantime, Madam Chairperson, we have to stay the course. We have to do what is required. We have to do the responsible things here in our Province, and as much as they do not like it, that somebody finally had to come and stand up and do what the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have wanted to be done, and the right thing to get this Province back on course. Nobody wants to live in a sea of debt. If you are in it in your personal affairs, you would end up going bankrupt. Bills have to be paid. We have bonds on the market, issues on the market, debentures out there. They have to pay the interest. If we default - we cannot afford to default. We have to have a sustainable and an appropriate financial situation here that is fiscally sustainable. We are going to do it. As much as they shout and as much as they complain, they do not like what they hear but they are going to have to live with it because the people of this Province elected us to get us back on track, to get us out of that spiral we are in, to stop spending people's money indiscriminately out there. They were just throwing money out the door, spending it irrationally and not doing what is best for the people of the Province.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave?

MADAM CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, you know, the truth is always more telling. People have a job living with the truth because, if they know it is not true then it does not bother them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Madam Chair, it seems that there is obviously some more debate required on Executive Council. We certainly want to be able to ensure that the appropriate amount of debate is provided to the Leader of the Opposition and any member, for that matter, who wants to participate in these important Estimate Committee discussions.

With that, Madam Chair, it being 5:20 p.m., I move that the Committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise and report progress.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the legislative head of expenditure, without amendment, made further progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have passed the legislative head of expenditure, without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again? On tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that the other day I may have unintentionally misled the House. I reported to the House a quotation that goes as follows, "O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

That particular quote, I said it was from Shakespeare. It is not from Shakespeare, Mr. Speaker, and I would not want hon. members to be misled. It is actually from Sir Walter Scott. It is a quote that was pertinent to the particular day, but I would not want hon. members to be misled. I therefore want to apologize for having misled the House. It was Sir Walter Scott and not Shakespeare who said that, when I quoted, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that we would want to rule that Walter Scott is always in order in this House, even if he is out of order in this particular case.

There is no point of order whatsoever.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I appreciate the point of clarification made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. This being the May 24 weekend, I suggest that he take some lessons on his fishing expedition on the twenty-fourth, if he is going to try to make further points.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of making sure that next week we have the opportunity to discuss and debate the Executive Council Estimates and other Estimates, I move, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not rise on Tuesday - where Monday is a holiday - at 5:30 of the clock nor at 10 o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has been moved that this House do now adjourn until Tuesday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Tuesday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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