The House met at 2: 00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to take the opportunity now to welcome thirty-four Grade X students from Eugene Vaters Collegiate in the District of St.John's North, accompanied by their teachers: Mr. Byron Head, Vice-Principal, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Ross Head.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year the provincial economy showed a significant drop in employment that was largely related to the winding down of Hibernia construction and public sector downsizing. In contrast, I am glad to report today broadly based job gains so far this year.

During the first three months of 1997, losses of Hibernia construction jobs were more than offset by employment gains elsewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Job gains were realized across a wide range of industries: in Primary industries which include mining, fishery, agriculture and forestry, in Manufacturing which includes fish processing, and also in the service industries including the Wholesale and Retail Trade and the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries. Healthy gains were also recorded in the Community, Business and Personal Services industry which includes many sectors such as hotels, motels and restaurants which are expected to reap strong benefits from tourist activity this year.

Total employment for all industries combined was up by 1.5 per cent on average during the first three months. This was the best performance of any province east of the Manitoba border. And it was a better performance than the 1 per cent gain recorded nationally. Newfoundland was also the only Province east of Manitoba to record a modest improvement in its unemployment rate, a decline of 0.1 percentage point, as some of the employment gains were offset by an increased number of people in the labour force. In Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia the unemployment rates rose by 2.4 and 2.5 percentage points respectively.

Mr. Speaker, this is positive news for Newfoundland and Labrador, a sign of improvement for our Province. Not only are we realizing employment gains in our growing resource sector, but we are also achieving it more specifically within the tourism industry. With the sailing of The Matthew from Bristol, England only a week away, we can also look forward to further increased employment opportunities in this industry throughout the summer and fall as we celebrate Cabot 500 year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister alludes to a healthy employment gain in the first quarter. One-tenth of one per cent improvement in the unemployment rate and calls that a healthy gain. I can see what the minister's expectations are.

What we see is 15,000 less people working in this Province than when the Liberals came to power in 1989 under a promise to bring home every mother's son. We seen 17,000 people leave our Province from the latest census from Statistics Canada. Seventeen thousand, many young and the brightest people in our Province, left to go to work elsewhere, west of the Manitoba border where they are now finding work across Canada. I say to the minister, this government has failed dismally in setting economic opportunities and equating jobs here in this Province and he stands up and boasts of 1/10 of 1 per cent. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, to think that the minister here is trying to twist what is a bad news statement into something that is good news. We would like to see tremendous growth in the economy over the next year but this very minister, one month ago in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - one month ago in this House that minister stood with the Budget and released a document -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

- a document that tells us there is a 3.5 per cent decline in employment in the Province this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised that the Minister of Finance sees such good news in 1/10 of a per cent gained in an unemployment rate that is twice the national average. Mr. Speaker, as unemployed people leave this Province the unemployment rate goes down. I don't consider that to be a positive thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. Mr. Minister, the Deputy Minister of Health has recently been out doing locums - which I understand he has done - filling in for doctors over the past few years, which of course he has done, as I said, quite recently. If the deputy minister is able to do this on top of his $105,000 a year salary, can the minister ensure that he does these locums in areas such as Port aux Basques, Port Saunders or any other area of the Province that is obviously in desperate need of a physician?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The deputy minister, as the hon. member correctly alludes to, does on occasion have the opportunity to do locums for other doctors as he sees fit and chooses. The deputy minister is entitled to do on his own well earned vacation time as he sees fit, as is the hon. member or anybody else in terms of how they engage or otherwise spend their vacation time. That is the only context in which the deputy minister does locums and his vacation time is used at his discretion and I am sure the hon. member would understand that he would not want it any other way.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that first of all I guess I have no problem with the deputy minister of health taking a vacation, I might want to question why the minister and the deputy minister were both gone at the same time and why people around this Province who are very, very concerned about health care issues, keep phoning your office and cannot get an answer.

The status quo simply is not working when is comes to recruiting doctors for rural Newfoundland, minister. Can the minister tell us what actions or other ideas he intends to use to ensure that rural areas are not deprived of doctors in this Province?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member seems to be fixated upon what people in this House and people now working for the public service do on holiday time that is appropriately due to them. I understand yesterday he was suggesting that I spent four to six weeks, made four to six trips this year to Florida for vacation. Well, I can only wish that he were right, and that I had the opportunity and the time to do that. I would suggest the hon. member worry more about what he does in his scheduled days work and worry about his own holiday schedule, as opposed to worrying about the holiday schedule of the ministers of the crown, the members of the House or the members of the public service who work for the House.

Now, as to the particular incident that he raised, let the hon. member be aware that the minister, when he is out of town, has at least two alternate ministers who cover for him. In fact any minister of the crown can answer an behalf of government. The deputy minister has three deputy ministers working for him at what point he may be away and in the event of all of these things, the circumstance that he outlined, the deputy minister was in fact in town on Thorburn Road doing a locum, readily available, coming back to the office, over time every single day when he was out doing his locum, to ensure that not only was his regular days work when he was out done, but that he was on top of the health care file.

The hon. member has no need to worry about the effectiveness and the efficiency of the office of the minister or the deputy minister and I would suggest that he turn his mind to more substantive matters and get on to some bigger macro issues as opposed to the nitty gritty small nitpicking issues and things that he brings forward in the House in the name of health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Might I say a very elegant speech again from the minister. Unfortunately, I guess he did not tell anybody in his department that somebody else was in charge when the person who was looking for the minister and the deputy concerning cardiac surgery got shipped around three to four times by his office and nobody over there could give any answers. Very interesting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: The Minister of Health seems to believe that the system in this Province is fine; so today, Mr. Minister, just another little tidbit for you.

Approximately two weeks ago, a Sister - I am not sure of what order - was admitted to St. Clare's Mercy Hospital. The Sister was brought in and admitted. They took her up to the room and went to put her into bed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When they went to put her into bed, the lady in the next bed said: You cannot do that, the bed is not clean.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Does the Minister of Health consider that is adequate health care for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the patients who are now going in and out of our hospitals?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can demonstrate and document and put forward a proposition that suggests that either patients are being put into hospital beds before they are properly cleaned, or otherwise taken care of when a patient moves out, let him bring forward the specific information and let him put it on the floor of the House, or the Table of the House, and I will address it.

From my information, and to my knowledge, we are running a health care system that on an operational basis is effective and efficient, and I have no reason to believe that patients are being put into circumstances that jeopardize their health when they move in, or the health care that they get while they are there. If he has information to the contrary, let him produce it. Otherwise, let him get off his generalities and get onto something that is specific and substantive, and something that he can support - not like his leader when he puts forward propositions and is challenged. We have not heard from him in two weeks on the issue. Put the facts on the table. Either tell it like it is, either be truthful and honest about it all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - or else wait until you have the information before you open your mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

With the Premier's announcement yesterday of a Health Care Forum, the Premier now has finally admitted that there is a crisis in our health care system here in the Province.

I ask the Premier: Can he tell us today how this Health Care Forum will differ from the minister's responsibilities and his job description; secondly, the pre-Budget consultation process, the already extensive suggestions and communications that have been given to the department by physicians throughout this Province, and also from the numerous cries of concern from the people around our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the Leader of the Opposition's questions are just entirely wrong. I think everybody in this Province recognizes, every member of this government recognizes, that when it comes to the provision of our social services in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether we are talking about employment programs, whether we are talking about programs to assist people who are receiving social assistance, whether we are talking about our education programs, whether we are talking about health care, all of these programs from time to time in various areas are under stress. That is the reality of living in a province that has, as we have, one of the highest debts in the country, has one of the highest unemployment rates, and an economy that is in transition.

Getting up and pointing out that there are challenges to renewing this economy, Mr. Speaker, is perfectly appropriate. But to get up day after day suggesting that the entire Province is in a total crisis, that nothing can be done, the only suggestions opposite are criticisms, no constructive comment whatsoever, does not help.

What is the purpose of establishing a forum? It is an opportunity to allow people who are health care providers, be they doctors, be they nurses, to come and to participate in a dialogue and give government the benefit of their experience and their advice. If somewhere along the way as a result of that we can do better with the limited resources we have, we are quite happy to have that advice.

The Leader of the Opposition should be applauding the initiative - we will detail it over the next week or ten days - rather than condemning it before we have even given anybody, including front-line workers like nurses, a chance to be heard. Where does the genesis for this idea come from? Where does the suggestion for this idea come from? Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland Nurses Union met with the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet and recommended this concept, and we are now exploring it. We think it is a good idea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know where the Premier or the Minister of Health have been recently in this Province. The president of the nurses' union has been on the public airwaves telling about the concerns in health care, the Medical Association has been there, the general public, and now he wants a forum.

A health forum, Premier, is not what this Province needs. This Province needs - along with physicians telling you what the problems are, they have been offering solutions to you. A health forum will only waste precious time in getting to do what is to be done. I ask the Premier: Will you today cancel this plan and start dealing with the problems today that have been outlined to you by these people around the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the front-line nurses, front-line workers of the health care system, come before Cabinet, come before the Social Policy Committee, having given a substantial amount of thought to their suggestion, when they say to the government: We know that there are stresses in the system, and we know there is a limited capability of government to respond, and we know we have to do the best and get the best result with the limited financial resources we have, and government we want to work with you. All we want is a chance to be heard. I think it is incumbent upon the government to listen. I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition; we should shut them down and shut them up. I think we have to work with them when they offer their hand in teamwork.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, now it takes an unusual twist, a promise of consultation and listening. You did not listen when they were consulted. They have been telling you day and day again: Meet with them, but don't delay putting mechanisms in place to deal with the problem.

Eleven million dollars taken by your government out of long-term care and acute care this year is the answer you have given to people on the front lines in this Province, I say to the Premier.

What we need, is a forum probably, a forum in place of a minister who has been incapable of dealing with the problems here in this Province.

A simple question to the Premier: will you commit today to take funds from the contingency reserve fund to address the health care concerns in the Province now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the people of the Province will have faithfully transmitted to them the extent of the careful preparation and careful thought that goes into the positions being taken by the Leader of the Opposition. In a breathtaking flip-flop he has gone from `Cancel the forum; cancel it now before it's ever set up' to `Yes, we need a forum; yes we ought to listen to the people involved'.

Mr. Speaker, you don't make policy on the spot, and public posturing is no replacement for thoughtful public policy, and I intend to listen to the nurses of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier here makes policy on the spot. He should practice what he preaches. That is what he should do.

Now, don't you consider the concerns of health care in this Province important enough, I ask the Premier... Is there any greater priority today for the contingency reserve fund than to use it for health care? You have stated it should be used for emergencies. I ask the Premier now: Will he commit to using funds from the contingency reserve to solve some of the problems in health care in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are going to listen to the front-line health care providers. We are going to move swiftly. We will announce the purpose and the scope of the consultation, in particular with the health care providers themselves, I would think within a week or ten days. We will move very quickly through that consultation process and, Mr. Speaker, we will take the action that is appropriate and that is possible, following that consultation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We went through the infamous pre-Budget consultation process and you heard the concerns in health care around this Province. Health care was consistently viewed as the government's most important service. That is what was stated in the pre-Budget consultation document. Sister Elizabeth Davis even made a statement, she stated that a freeze is the same as a cut in health care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Why are you ignoring the suggestions of the people who already have been consulted and now are continuing to defend the system here, you are continuing to defend it? Why are you not going to do something about it and listen to the consultations you already have been receiving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not sure whether or not we are supposed to follow through - according to the Leader of the Opposition - and listen to the suggestion put just Tuesday of this week by the Newfoundland Nurses' Union to the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet because he's against it and he's for it, and he's against it and he's for it but now he is quoting Sister Elizabeth Davis as an authority on the health care system. Is this not the same Sister Elizabeth Davis who said that the Leader of the Opposition has no idea what he is talking about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that every single issue I have raised of health care in this Province is factual, I say to the Premier and the ministers, every single one, I can assure you. When I was going around this Province at eleven health care forums minister, you were the federal minister in Ottawa that cut the programs to this Province under the health and social transfer. You were the minister that delivered those cuts and now you are here in our Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is here in our Province now trying to downplay health care because of the cuts he made federally during a federal election. I ask the Premier now, will you do the hon. thing and realize we have a serious situation of health care in this Province and have the guts to stand up and say we are going to take money from a contingency reserve fund to address the most pressing problem in our Province today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to talk about Sister Elizabeth Davis any more and frankly, it isn't just Sister Elizabeth Davis - who by the way is doing a courageous job and who shouldn't, nor should the rest of her management team, be gratuitously attacked in this place. If anything, we should understand the tremendous stress they are under because we acknowledge there is tremendous pressure in the existing health care system to deliver the quality care that is needed with the resources that are available. Those people, both managers in the system and board members - many of whom are volunteers, who are doing their best under difficult circumstances to get the job done - should be supported, not gratuitously attacked or criticized as the Leader of the Opposition has done.

Mr. Speaker, the plain facts are these, if there is a need to address - we believe that we are going to need to address some of the stresses in the system - we should do so calmly, quietly and having heard from the front-line health care providers. We should not do it on the floor of the House based on panic stricken comments because the Leader of the Opposition has to face the Conservative Party in convention next week and he needs some kind of an issue, no matter whose scalp he has to try and take in order to have a good day next week. Mr. Speaker, health care is too important. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to work with us, not try to score cheap political points day in, day out and to live up to the request to fess up, to prove what he is saying or withdraw, as has been asked by The Evening Telegram in a lead editorial one week ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, in the news release from your office yesterday you strongly supported the federal minister's announcement on new quotas and allocation for the northern shrimp fishery. This increase in northern shrimp, total allowable catch, will be shared by those who normally fish or is adjacent to the stock.

Nowhere in either your statement or Minister Mifflin's statement, did you mention who will take part in the processing of this increased quota. I ask the minister if he would inform the House how he plans to deal with these shrimp processing licences and allocations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made yesterday was a long time coming. I have been advocating over the years that the shrimp caught off Labrador should be used for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The announcement the hon. Minister Mifflin made yesterday - we all should be jumping and cheering for the announcement that he made for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: It is the beginning of a whole new fishery and an income for people who have been lost and displaced because of the cod fishery. What is going to happen to the shrimp licences, the processing licences? In the recent policy that we announced, all of those plants that meet core status would have the ability to send in a proposal for a shrimp licence based on one fact, that the maximum benefits processing takes place here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear~

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no problem with that. I chatted with the minister privately on that before but I also say that it does not realistically make sense for sixty-five plants to have a shrimp licence and I am sure that that will not happen, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, why is there specifically mentioned a special allocation of 3,000 tons of shrimp for the northern tip of the Northern Peninsula? All the fleet sectors are mentioned in other areas, why this special allocation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the shrimp that was announced yesterday was based on a principle of adjacency to the stock -

AN HON. MEMBER: And a special allocation for Labrador as well.

MR. EFFORD: - and a special allocation for Labrador as well, if you had looked at the paper. So it is not only the Town of St. Anthony that has a shrimp allocation. Also, 3,500 tons for an in-shore quota adjacent to the shores of St. Anthony and that area up there, so the in-shore fisherman north of Cape Freels will have access to about 7,000 tons of shrimp to catch by the in-shore boats under sixty-five feet. I cannot see any manner and any reason why we should even begin to look in any critical manner at that statement that was announced yesterday. It is the beginning of a whole new fishery and if we catch and harvest and process that fish, probably this year, look at what the increase of quotas will be for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in '98, '99 and into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister nobody is being critical of the announcement. All I am trying to get is some clarification which even your own brother asked for on television yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is all we are looking for minister, and the 3,000 tons to which I refer, is not from Cape Freels. It specifically states that these are special allocations and are for the communities of Goose Cove to Big Brook, so you cannot say it is a special allocation from Cape Freels north. It is not that.

Minister, when Minister Mifflin indicated that this increase in the total allowable catch for the northern shrimp will be managed by local management boards, does the minister have any knowledge as to how these boards will be structured and what authority will they assume? Will the boards debate such things as who gets licences, when we can fish, Mr. Speaker, when we can harvest the product and will the provincial department have representation on those particular boards?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have been saying for years and years and years that fishermen, the people working in the industry should have more say in what takes place in the industry. What happened yesterday was giving the fishermen, the harvesters, the industry a greater say in the management of our resource. I have been saying that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian except the hon. Member for Bonavista South, and surely, he does not agree that we should be taking away from the management boards the structure that will be in place, will be put in place over the next days and weeks, as soon as the process can take and as quickly as possible. Because the main interest of the hon. minister in Ottawa, myself, and hopefully yourself, would be get the harvesting and processing done as quickly as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and they concern the pay equity issue.

The recent arbitration board ruling says that once the government entered into the pay equity agreement in 1988 to address what it agreed was a discriminatory practice, it could not, without infringing on section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution, revoke or make unlawful a right or a privilege that would have the affect or have adverse impact on the individuals of a particular gender.

I want to ask the minister, with all due reference to the Canadian Charter, why is this government appealing the board's decision to strike down section 9 of the 1991 Public Sector Restraint Act, in effect defending legislation it knows is having adverse economic impact on female employees who have been subject to widely recognized gender discrimination?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice officials have advised government that government should appeal this particular decision because it believes the arbitration board was not an appropriate mechanism to review and to advise and to make recommendations on this particular issue. Further, it recommended to government that the arbitration board erred in its particular decision. This is the advice that was provided to us as a government, and as a result of this advice we have decided to appeal this particular decision of the arbitration board.

We believe that this is the appropriate and the responsible course of action to take in this regard, particularly considering the financial and the potential financial impact that this decision can have on the Province as a whole. We do not, and we have said from the very beginning, that we do not see this as a decision that reflects on this government's position on pay equity. This government has taken a firm stance on pay equity. It has contributed very substantially to pay equity, not only since 1991, but in this very past year this government has contributed to the extent of $27 million to pay equity. I believe that our position is clear and is firm, and we have acted on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge that the minister is committed to issues relative to Status of Women. I've known the minister for a long time, and I've great respect for her positions on this particular matter.

Madam Minister, however, we know that the argument was put forward to the arbitration board, it was challenged, and it concluded that government is not entitled to favour other groups at the expense of disadvantaged groups. Page 103 of the report. When it ruled and it said: The infringement of the Charter of Rights of women, in this particular case, is too high a price to pay for the benefit of the law. That is what it said. That you can't condone discrimination -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: - and that the law, in the arbitration ruling here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - in effect said -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In effect said that the infringement was too high a price to pay in this particular case. I ask the minister: Why is the government then wasting precious public dollars to go into court? Why will the minister not commit herself to negotiate a settlement, rather than challenge this matter in a court? Why not try to seek a solution in another forum other than through a court of law?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, when we speak of the public dollar we also have to keep in mind that there was a very significant award associated with this particular ruling, and it was in the order of $50 million to $80 million that has been associated with it. We have referred this, on the recommendation again of our officials in the Department of Justice, to appeal. We believe that is the appropriate and the best mechanism to follow in this regard. I do not think it is appropriate, under the circumstances, that I get into any of the details, or comment on any of the specific aspects, either of the ruling or on the aspect of our appeal to this. I will simply say that Justice officials will handle it, that they are forwarding the appeal and that the matter will then rest with the courts to decide what the ultimate resolution of this will be.

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

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

Madame Minister will know, the Charter states that every individual has the right to equal treatment of the law without discrimination based on sex, etcetera.

Mr. Speaker, we saw the Premier a few days ago on national television -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

We saw the Premier a few days ago on national television saying that the Constitution of Canada is a living vibrant document, offering protection to all groups and individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He knows that a preamble is not permitted on a supplementary. I ask the hon. member to quickly get to his question.

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

I ask the Premier - in saying that the Constitution of this country is a vibrant living document, we must make sure that it applies to all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and we must not exempt the women of Newfoundland and Labrador from its full and equal protection.

When will the Premier assure the women of Newfoundland and Labrador that they have the same rights as all other people in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the government of this Province will spend $27 million this year in the pursuit of pay equity. That number will increase to $50 million a year for pay equity.

The matter that the member is raising is a question that goes back to a restraint program that was in place on the public sector and the question of whether or not the restraint program, itself, that is, the delay or slow-down of the implementation of pay equity, was legal or not. Lawyers in the Department of Justice, who are more learned in this subject then either you or I, has said to the government, there has been an error in law, and the prudent and responsible course for government is to appeal because of the very large, up to $80 million, impact.

Now, I say to the member, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for your forbearance for one moment, that we cannot stand in the House and ask for more money, as has been done, for health care, more money for education and more money for a great many other things and ask the government not to take the advice of its lawyers on a matter that has an $80 million impact.

One final point, Mr. Speaker. I am proud and I hope that all the members of the House are proud, that we have a record number of women sitting in this House today, a record number of women contributing to governance in the Cabinet, and that the House and the Province are far better for it. And that is the most eloquent statement we can make about the importance of the full role of women in the life of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

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

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

I am glad to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Middle Arm, Burlington and Smith's Harbour.

I ask the House of Assembly to accept the following petition:

We, the undersigned residents of the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads. The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make travelling to and from schools unsafe for our children, as well as jeopardize the safety of the travelling public, hurt economic growth conditions, and portray a lack of commitment to rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second petition that I plan to present to the House over the next week or so, or however long the communities send the petitions. Very simply, I tell the minister that I am presenting a petition in this particular case from three communities, Middle Arm, Burlington and Smith's Harbour, some 1,200 people who live in that particular area, as the minister is aware now, who are still protesting today. They are one of the groups still out protesting the road conditions in their area.

Mr. Speaker, I was there just a few days ago before the House opened, and I can tell the minister - I have said it before and I will say it again - that the road conditions are worse than usual, even for this time of year. We realize it is spring, with the heavy run-off and so on, more than usual; but it is not just the spring weather, it is a combination of the spring weather and deterioration over a long period of time. These roads basically cannot sustain their upgrade anymore. Even when we send equipment there to grade the roads and so on, it is useless, because the equipment is just grading over bald rock. There is nothing left on these gravel roads.

Mr. Speaker, I say this to other members in the House from rural Newfoundland, because I know, and I have said to the minister, we are not the only district in the Province that has gravel roads. I know there are other communities that have deplorable conditions as far as their road conditions go. I realize that, but there are two points I would like to make.

First of all, I represent the District of Baie Verte. That is why I represent these people who send in petitions, and I also support them in their protest. Because although I did not expect 112 kilometres of pavement to come to the Baie Verte Peninsula this year, or the Baie Verte district, because there are also roads into Green Bay unpaved, I did expect more than what we have. I think we could have satisfied a lot of people with a small amount. There are some communities that are only asking for a kilometre or two kilometres to get past the worst parts of the roads that have deteriorated over a long period of time. They are not expecting double lanes, or anything like that. They are just asking for a decent share, that is all.

The Premier and the government, when they took office, talked about being fair to all districts. Of course, the federal member in my district hopefully is talking to the people there - he understands it also. But they are asking for just a fair share.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the district are waiting for a commitment from the minister, and a formal response, which I understand she will be giving to them within the next couple of weeks; I do not know the time limit on it exactly. What they are looking for, I say to the minister, in constructively criticizing this situation, is that they do not want fifty or eighty kilometres; they are looking for something fair. They have 112 kilometres left to pave; they have eleven this year. At that rate - and it is simple mathematics - it will be eleven years before the last community sees a paved road. We will go through three terms of government before they see the last bit of pavement come there. Even though at the end of it all we may not get it all paved, I am sure - and I might make a suggestion to the minister today - that some of these communities will be very satisfied with just a couple of kilometres through the communities, because the added problem we have is that during the summer months when the roads are dusty, these people cannot even breathe in the town, but if they had a paved kilometre or two throughout the community, and later on - the bottom line, what they want to see, is some commitment to progress. They have not seen it. It has been stalled.

We can go back through history and find out who was in power. We have had Liberal members, we have had Tory members, we have had - well, we have not had an NDP member; maybe that is the problem, I say to the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. But we have had all kinds of members. We can go back through history. We have had government on side both federally and provincially and so on. The bottom line is that there are people in this Province who pay taxes. They are not asking for fifty kilometres. They are asking for a portion that would show that there is progress and there is commitment to people in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Burlington, Middle Arm and Smith's Harbour have some of the worst road conditions on the Baie Verte Peninsula. They deserve a sign of commitment from the government to show that they will have some kind of reprieve from the situation that they find themselves in today, which is non-drivable, impassable roads. What they are really concerned about is their children who have to travel on buses now, with all the cuts to education, that they have to go over these roads all the time. What they are concerned about is at least having a decent road to drive over, even if their hospitals are not able to handle the capacity, and if the school system - the schools closing in communities and so on. In one community alone, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: I support these people on this petition and I hope the minister will get up and say a few words.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition as presented by my colleague. I am sure the minister will rise in a few minutes and comment on it as well. I think it is a very serious situation when we are having children being kept out of school today. I certainly support the position of my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte. He has been down there, he has driven over these roads on numerous occasions. He was down there with constituents, he rode the bus over these roads, and found they are in a very deplorable condition, so much so that parents today are afraid to put their children on the bus and have them travel over such a road.

I believe he probably has, in his district, one of the most serious problems with regard to roadwork in the Province. Like he said, he certainly does not expect all of the roads to be paved under the 1997 Budget. I think maybe it is time we took a look at the Budget and we took a look at our roadwork, and exactly what we are going to do. I wholeheartedly support the position of my colleague, and can only trust that in some of the more serious sections of road in his district, the minister will ensure her department gets out in the year 1997 and makes sure that some paving is done in his district, to alleviate at least the larger problems that are there now. Thank you.

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

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The members speak to a problem that we all recognize exists across the Province with respect to the gravel roads that still remain in the Province. We have within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador remaining still in the order of 1,000 kilometres of gravel road. Including, I guess, the Labrador piece, you would have more like 1,500 kilometres of gravel road.

In relation to that, and in relation to the Baie Verte Peninsula, in particular, we have 112 kilometres of gravel road that still exist. In addition to that, we also have a number of roads that are major collector roads feeding from large areas like the peninsulas that perhaps are in need of a major, a significant amount of repair, because of the fact that they have been in place now for a number of years. So there is a large capital requirement to completely upgrade all of the roads in this Province. That does not include the upgrading that is ongoing and required specifically on the Trans-Canada Highway and on many of our regional trunk roads.

I would also like to point out that in the last twenty-five years, approximately $38 million has been spent on roads in the Baie Verte Peninsula. That will give you some indication of the extent and the scope and the challenge that exists with capital infrastructure like roads in a province such as ours. We have, over the past year, done a complete assessment. My department has assessed all of the roads in the Province and determined the nature of the condition that exists with them, has established priorities in terms of where they fit in that larger problem, and which ones need to have attention prior to getting to some of the other problems that exist.

This is a very large exercise when you look at 1,000 kilometres of road throughout the Island, of gravel roads, and certainly much more than that when you then factor in the collector and secondary roads. What we have attempted to do is to establish the nature of the need that exists, so that as we allocate the resources we get for roadwork in this Province, we can address the most pressing issues that exist in all districts of the Province, and that is what we have done in the roads program for this year.

We have had a limited amount of money that we can put into capital construction for roads. It is supplemented by the roadwork that we will do of a maintenance nature. I think this is the area where, in meeting with the people from Burlington and Middle Arm, I tried to impress upon them that we would try to work with them and respond in the short term until we can actually get to the point where we can do the paving which is what they are primarily looking for to relieve the conditions that they are experiencing. So over the next week or so - as I indicated to the representatives of the communities that I met with - we will be doing a detailed maintenance plan which we will then provide to the communities so that they will know firsthand what upgrading work of a maintenance nature can be done on the roads to their communities this year. That should be completed and will be available to them before the end of the next two week period.

There is a short term problem here and there is a longer term problem here. The short term problem that exists right now, we have only limited response capability. As the member indicated, with the spring conditions that we have right now there is only so much that we can do to alleviate the problems that exist. We can make another response come summertime with our maintenance program which will hopefully see that the same extent of difficulty is not experienced again next year but then the long term solution is to complete our overall plan and to actually pave the roads to all of those communities, all of the 112 kilometres that exist. I would say to the member that I don't anticipate it will take the ten or eleven years that he speaks to. If there is sustained funding available through our budgets over the next number of years we will be able to accelerate that program and to complete it in much less than the ten or eleven years that he speaks to.

So I simply say at this point that I recognize the concerns that people are expressing for the conditions they are having to live with right now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS BETTNEY: - and I would certainly say that we will respond as best we can. We will communicate with the town representatives in these cases as soon as possible so that we can inform them of what they can expect to happen over the summer months to maintain and upgrade the roads in their communities.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders from St. John's, Mount Pearl, Bay Bulls, Job's Cove and Corner Brook in the Province who are petitioning this House of Assembly to address the concerns related to poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, child poverty. The petitioners petition the House to direct government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, this petition asks government and in particular I suppose the Department of Education - I am glad the minister is here in the House today because I am hoping that he will listen to these petitions and revise his opinion with respect to the support for a universal comprehensive school lunch program. What he has said in the past, Mr. Speaker, is that volunteers should do this and that the government should stay out of it and let the community groups do it. Well, Mr. Speaker, this unfortunately is the kind of attitude that this government has towards a lot of social needs, a lot of needs in this Province that are are being met at the moment. In fact, what they seem to be doing is downloading some of government's responsibilities on to the volunteer sector. The volunteer sector cannot deal with this problem. The problem is one that is widespread throughout the Province, in fact, perhaps where the need is greatest. The opportunity for volunteers to address that need is also the weakest, Mr. Speaker, because the resources of the communities just are not there to find a solution to the problem of child hunger in their community.

The petitioners here, Mr. Speaker, recognize that government has achieved substantial savings in the education system, even the last fiscal year, with the reduction in the number of teacher allocations due to the declining enrollment, with the changes to the school system and the closing down of a number of schools with the elimination of school busing in many circumstances, Mr. Speaker, which we were told a few years ago would save $11 million from the school budget.

So, there seems to be plenty of room to find a significant amount of dollars that might be necessary and I am not saying that it is a cheap program, but it is a program that would be vital in providing an element of food security to children who now go to school without breakfast and to end up having no lunch and they are unable to participate in the full extent of what goes on in school. So, they are enduring hunger while they are at school and they are failing to learn properly, so that their chances for success, both in school and in life, are diminished and that is something that we cannot afford to let happen. We cannot afford to let happen for the sake of these children themselves and for the sake of their futures, but also for the sake of our own Province. We do not want to see under achievers in school, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to see under achievement caused by hunger. We do not want to see under achievement caused by anything, but in particular something that is solvable, a program that is doable.

Other countries undertake such programs on a regular basis, France for example has a regular program. Not directly child poverty, Mr. Speaker, but directed at providing lunch for everybody in the school, that is part of the school system there. You go to school in the morning, at lunch time or noontime, everybody stops for lunch. A hot lunch is served by the school and the teachers partake in it, the students partake in it. There is no choice, there is no cafeteria style, you are not offered fifteen different options. It a part of a regular school program and it is something that if we integrated into our program in this Province would eliminate a serious problem for children who are unable to focus their attention on the school subjects. Who are unable to participate fully in the learning experiences from school and who are suffering from lack of nutrition generally.

The Newfoundland Dietician's Association have taken great efforts to point out to this government the needs of poor people in this Province to have an adequate diet and they have also pointed out the cost to have an adequate diet which if spent, even in St. John's Mr. Speaker, would take up eighty-five per cent of the basic social assistance rate that is available to people.

So, it is a very, very important cause that these petitioners are asking this House to support and it is one that I will continue to raise in this House and to continue to try to convince the Minster of Education and the cabinet to revisit this issue and not to just treat it as another volunteer activity that they can send a few dollars on and hope that the problem will go away or else if the problem does not get resolved, they can blame it on the communities themselves for not solving the problem. This is a problem that government can and should address.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to just make a few comments in support of the petition with respect to the school lunch program here in our Province. This is one of many similar petitions which have been put forward by various members of this hon. House in support of a school lunch program for every child in every school in our Province.

There is no argument, Mr. Speaker, with the rational for such a program. It has been well established, that it is in the interest of all children, educational interest, health interests and so on, that such a program be initiated. It states right in the wording of the petition that poverty affects so many children in our Province and in fact there is a statistic of one-third of Newfoundland and Labrador families living on social assistance and of course we have the very discouraging statistic which is found in the report entitled "Special Matters", which shows some 38 to 40,000 children in our Province live in poverty. That is an astounding statistic. It is a statistic that we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians ought not to be very proud of and it is one which supports the wording of this petition encouraging this government to initiate a program with respect to school lunches, or as the formal title is: A Universal, Comprehensive School Lunch Program. Also, such a program would be stigma-free in that every child would be treated equally, every child would be treated fairly. There would be no distinguishing between one child and another and one's economic background would obviously not be a factor, that would have all children treated with equality in our schools and it would ensure from a health point of view and an educational point of view that their best interests are being protected. So, Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the prayer of the petition; I stand in support of the words that have been put forward by my colleague, and it is hoped that one day, the members opposite will take seriously what so many hundreds, indeed, thousands of Newfoundlanders are saying on behalf of the poor children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another petition to present on the privatization of the provincial parks. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the Provincial Government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Premier to immediately reverse the decision to privatize the provincial parks, as they are the people's resource. We feel that this decision was made in haste, without any consultation with the people who own the parks, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much argument back and forth yesterday during debate on the provincial parks issue. I have stood in the House on many occasions and argued against the privatization of provincial parks and I think I have made my points very well known. I have travelled across the Province, Mr. Speaker, and met with various groups throughout the Province who are all against the privatization of provincial parks and for many different reasons. But the important key here is the fact that these are our provincial parks and the people of the Province were not consulted. The people of the Province had absolutely no say in whether or not they wanted these parks privatized and, Mr. Speaker, some of the parks that are being privatized are some of the more profitable parks throughout the provincial park system.

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, believe that the provincial parks should remain provincial parks; they should remain legislatively protected; they should remain environmentally protected through the legislation of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have many, many more petitions on this particular matter that we will be presenting in the House -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we should call order to the floor.

I have many other petitions, Mr. Speaker, that we will be presenting to the House of Assembly on the issue of the privatization of provincial parks.

The minister has stated that by the end of this month she will let us know which private operators will be taking over these provincial parks and at what price. I firmly believe that the revenue we will receive through the privatization of these provincial parks will come nowhere near the investment that we have put into the provincial parks throughout the years, and on that note, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to present the petition and represent the people who have signed the petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to the petition so capably put forward by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South. And while I am standing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Member for St. John's South for the time and effort he has put into this problem that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been rebelling and speaking out against, and saying: The government will not listen so we want to echo our frustrations to somebody who will bring it to their attention day after day.

I commend the member for that, for taking the initiative to travel this Province at his own expense, having public meetings right across this Province and giving people a chance to come forward and vent their frustrations and opinions - did it at his own expense. He is to be commended and I congratulate him for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: If this was done, Mr. Speaker, by the minister in the very beginning, then the people out there would not be so frustrated today and would not be as mad at the government. They would not be mad at the minister. They are out there crying today to be heard. The minister has come forward and unilaterally, standing alone, has brought down this hurt on the seniors and the people who have used those parks in our Province today.

When you go into the parks of Newfoundland and Labrador, our provincial parks, you do not go in and see a line-up and a caravan, if you would, of motor homes. For the most part, you go in and you see people erecting a tent or a hard-top camper, out with the barbecue on, out with the pot boiling. That is their trip, that is their vacation - not like the Minister of Education! Coming back from Mexico on a four-week holiday. The people we are talking about who use those parks are not wealthy like the Minister of Education, shunning his responsibilities and leaving this Province, when the whole of the rural areas are in turmoil. Shame, shame! I say to the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. FITZGERALD: You should be here where there have been demonstrations and where there are people looking for you, I say. Look at the Minister of Finance with the suntan. Where did he get that? I suggest it was not in Corner Brook either, Mr. Speaker - another gentleman who takes his vacation down in Florida, spending his money outside of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: - Mr. Speaker, spending his money outside this Province while we, on this side, beg for the government of the day to maintain ownership of the parks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I will not speak of Mr. Andersen's suntan because he treats me very well, and I know he got his suntan from down on the Labrador Coast representing his people. His suntan, for the most part, is like mine, it is windburn, it is not suntan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: When he wears sunglasses it is not to protect him from the sun, but the reflection from the ice, like myself, I say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, on a more serious note, I commend the -

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

MR. FITZGERALD: - Member for St. John's South.

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, on a point of order.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out for hon. members that the windburn the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains suffers from is that generated by the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is why the front benches are all suntanned over there. We did not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it comes from each other, I say. It is the love-in when the Cabinet meets, I would suggest.

The shame of this privatization of provincial parks goes - we have to think about the human factor that is involved here, how the employees of those particular parks were informed as to what was happening. I know some employees in my district got a phone call informing them: You are to be in Clarenville at 2:00 tomorrow morning. This is right at the time where their UI is just about run out, they are looking forward to going back to work and doing a job that they normally did, to put bread and butter on the table, to support their families. What do they get?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: They get the minister coming forward -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and saying: I am sorry, but you do not have a job anymore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. FITZGERALD: You do not have a job anymore. Come back tomorrow and we will tell you where you might be placed!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TULK: No, Mr. Speaker, he is too (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that we will see this petition come forward and I will have a chance to echo my thoughts once again. The minister had to leave.

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1, the Budget debate.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: You might be able to interrupt, I say to the Government House Leader, but you will not stifle me.

Mr. Speaker, how much longer do I have on this debate, because there are a couple of points I would like to make.

MR. SPEAKER: Two minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: A full half-hour.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I may was well use the evening.

MR. SPEAKER: I am told that the hon. member has two minutes left.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Minister of Fisheries is not here because it was sad to see the federal minister come here to Newfoundland on two different occasions - he described the first occasion as Christmas Day, and the next one as New Year's Eve - with all the good news that he brought. I can assure you that there are a lot of fishermen and a lot of fish plant workers out there today who did not receive any wonderful gifts in the two announcements that he made.

When you look at the hundreds of fishermen in this Province today who are putting forward a simple request for vessel replacement - they are not looking for any extra licences; they are not looking for any extra quotas; they are not looking for any hand-outs from government; all they are asking is to be able to purchase a vessel that will give them some degree of safety and some degree of comfort when they go out on the seas and go offshore in order to take part in a fishery to feed and support their families. They are not looking for one thing from government, and there is no reason for government to be involved. In fact, the federal minister struck a committee - I think it was in November of last year that they reported to the minister, so I guess the committee was struck at least a month before that - to go around the Province and receive input from fishermen and to receive input from enterprise owners to find out what they should do with vessel replacement, something in which the government should never have been involved.

If I feel that my enterprise or my business can support a larger boat, and if I feel that I am willing to put my name and my reputation on the line to go out and negotiate a loan with one of the chartered banks to buy a vessel, then why should government be involved? Those people are saying that this is a disaster waiting the happen.

If the federal minister does not soon move, does not soon bring about the rules and regulations as they pertain to vessel replacement, I fear that there is a disaster waiting to happen. You are seeing today fishermen having to leave and go 200 miles offshore in a forty-five foot boat in order to take part in a turbot fishery, or take part in a crab fishery today. Those boats were never designed to go 200 miles offshore, forty-five foot long-liners. In some cases those same fishermen cannot maintain insurance on their boats because of the distance they have to go in order to take part in the fishery.

What they are asking is a simple request to be allowed to go out and purchase a vessel that will allow them to go and fish in safety and comfort, nothing more than that. In fact, I would say it is unhealthy for a crew of six or seven to go offshore -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: With leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, thirty seconds or so.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not right and proper for fishermen to be involved in this.

I have to go back, in cluing up, when I saw all the members, especially the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, running over to shake hands with the Minister of Finance when he brought down his Budget, and I say to members opposite, and I say to the Member for Twillingate and Fogo, the Member from Marystown, and the Member for Humber Valley, the people who represent rural areas, the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile, to go out and talk to your people and see how excited they are about this Budget. Talk to the people out there who are unemployed. Talk to the people out there who are about to come off the TAGS program, the people who cannot find work, the people who are losing their jobs because of the cutbacks, the sick out there who are on a waiting list to get into the hospitals. Talk to the parents who are going to lose their schools. Talk about the people who have to drive over the roads that we are experiencing in rural Newfoundland today. Talk to those people and see how excited they are about this Budget. Talk to those people, and see if the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and the other front row members here for supporting their members when they went forward and shook the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board's hand and said congratulations.

Go out and talk to your people instead of going down to Florida, I say to the member, afraid to go out in his district. Afraid to go back and face his people because of what he had done with the education system out there. I say to the Member for Port au Port, how many of your constituents said: Shake the minister's hand when you go back because it has been a good Budget? How many?, I say in all sincerity to the Member for Port au Port, because he is a good member. I didn't see him flocking around the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. He isn't one of those people who will sell his soul for a dollar. There are lots of them over there, and the gentleman who is about, and very eager, to stand now is one of them, I say to the members opposite.

This has not been a positive Budget. There is a lot of people hurting out there today. There is a lot of people waiting with great anticipation for this Budget to be brought down because they were hoping that there would be a little bit of hope brought forward.

MR. DECKER: Longest (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Minister of Justice - who is mellowing out in his old age, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who saw him in another day can remember the times he stood here and gave the big speeches, gave the big spiels, bent over like you wouldn't know if he was trying to do bows to the royalty or touch his toes with his nose. But it is all gone.

MR. DECKER: Practising for June (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He is more than welcome. I look forward to seeing your boat tied up in the harbour at Bonavista. You will be welcome. We don't discriminate down there, I can guarantee you that. You will be welcome, you will be treated like royalty.

I thank the members for giving me leave. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite to talk to the Cabinet ministers, talk to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, represent your constituents. That is the reason why you are here. Not to represent your Leader or the Minister of Education or the Minister of `Wealth.' He doesn't have a problem. After the next election when he gets defeated he will go back to the lumber world and sell his hardwood floors and sell his plumbing supplies, go to his condominium in Toronto, back to Florida, no problem. In fact, you will soon see him taking part in the advertisements of Air Canada saying what a wonderful airline it is and how good the peanuts are. You will soon see him there.

I suppose I'm a little jealous when I say that because I envy the minister. I don't envy him for going to Florida. I never want to look like him, but I do envy him for being, I suppose, a businessman and making his own dollars. I would like to have the Jaguar. I would like to borrow your Jaguar. I see that you have moved it now. He has moved it now from one level down to another level in his driveway. I noticed it the other day all washed up and shining. I had a job to see it because I was parked behind the Cadillac. I had to look two or three times. There is no guessing where the Minister of Health lives up in Cowan Heights, I can guarantee you that. All you have to do is look for the biggest house. If it isn't Judge Wicks' it is the Minister of Health's, I say to people opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Any Lloyd will do. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say. My time is up and I certainly (inaudible). Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Sometimes sitting here in the back benches, Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder how far have we gone in 500 years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to point out that it is only 500 years, he might have come with the wise men but I didn't think he was here that long.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not yet ruled on the point of order. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is appropriate to say that a good time was had by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Member for Conception Bay South, very rarely do I see him. He is usually sneaking around, on holidays or whatever but he was not here yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke against the motion on privatization of parks and how I said that I was appalled that the Member for Conception Bay South had -

MR. FRENCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly pay for another set of glasses for the minister and I am very pleased with what he said, it is not very often in this life have I heard somebody say that they could not see me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I would put my record of attendance in the House any time at all, Mr. Speaker. I am usually in my place. If I am not sick I am here, believe me but if the gentleman cannot see me I will gladly pay for a pair of glasses.

MR. MATTHEWS: You're not exactly (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: No, I'm not Lloyd, no.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, whether the hon. Member for Topsail could see the hon. Member for Conception Bay South or whether he could not is somewhat irrelevant but it is unparliamentary to refer to the presence or the absence of any hon. member in the House of Assembly and I would remind members, on both sides of the House, of that fact.

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: My statement, Mr. Speaker, was really only an expression of disappointment because what I had said was the audacity of the Member for Conception Bay South to wonder whether he had my support when he went to seek private/public partnering. He thought it was a good idea. Eleven months, Mr. Speaker, after I had raised the issue publicly, eleven months after he thought it was a good idea. I thought that that was pretty appropriate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, things start to quiet down a bit. Probably you are going to give me an opportunity to speak without interruption. I do it here all the time. I sit here and I don't interrupt members opposite.

You recall, Mr. Speaker, how the Member for Waterford Valley, who was so anxious to jump up every now and then yesterday to interrupt me. I had said that he was in turmoil, Liberal all his life, ran for the Progressive Conservative Party and sits over there as a Liberal with the Opposition. Can you imagine the turmoil he's in? Can you imagine sitting on the other side of the House being a Liberal? I couldn't. Never in my wildest dreams, Mr. Speaker, could I imagine sitting on the other side of the House.

I am a Liberal, a true red Liberal. That is the party, Mr. Speaker, that is the party that can walk the middle of the road and go to the left or the right when necessary and that is what it is all about. When we have people in need, we take care of those people in need and we try our best in the interest of everybody and now Mr. Speaker, the members opposite start to pipe up again and I hear them talk about a former minister, my former boss. The best member that Conception Bay South ever had, that put millions and millions of dollars into that district and you hear the present member for Conception Bay South over there moaning, Mr. Speaker, and so he should moan because when she was here as a minister, he was sitting on council and I heard him talk the other day about how he wanted to put infrastructure in Conception Bay South and when he was on council not one red cent, not one red cent was he prepared to put in the town of Foxtrap, which is part of the town of Conception Bay South. No, Mr. Speaker, he was not going to do it and you know why, you know why he was not prepared to do it, because they had just joined the town a couple of years ago. Here they were, full partners in the town and he was not prepared to do it, no Mr. Speaker, not prepared to do it.

Now, this is the fairness and justice of what we have in opposition. This is the way that they want to think. Then he was on the airwaves every other day, the member for Conception Bay South then is not doing their job, we have roads up here that need to be done and low and behold the minister did get the road started, by the time the road was started he was on the airwaves, he wanted it stopped. You have to stop it, it is going to interfere, the people are going to go in St. John's to quick, they are not going to be shopping up in Conception Bay South. Amazing Mr. Speaker, amazing, it is amazing how fear can take over ones thinking, it is amazing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South on a point of order.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. member from Topsail badgering on and on and on, but when somebody stands in this House and deliberately lies about a member, then I take great exception to that and somebody has just told a deliberate lie, a deliberate, deliberate lie concerning me, and I resent that, and I resent it greatly, and I would ask the member opposite to withdraw his remarks because never ever, ever did that ever take place. Now, I do not mind the badgering back and forth, but I certainly resent that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Justice, speaking to the point of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen knows he cannot use that language in this House and I would certainly draw that to the speakers attention.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been ruled in this hon. House on a number of occasions and I reiterate it again toady, that it is unparliamentary to refer to any member as uttering something that is intentionally lying. I will ask the hon. member to withdraw his comments.

MR. FRENCH: If that word is unparliamentary Mr. Speaker, then I will withdraw it, but I certainly do not withdraw the intention to that word. I will certainly withdraw the wording, I have no intention of that, but the intention of what is being said is not right and I challenge the member to produce tapes or anything that he might have in his position to prove such a point. Now, I can get into pork barrelling and all of that, but I will stay out of that for another couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled that the terminology used was unparliamentary. The Chair has asked for a withdrawal. The Chair has heard a withdrawal. If there is any hon. member in this House who is not

satisfied with what the Chair has heard, let him speak, otherwise I will call on the hon. Member for Topsail to continue the debate.

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

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

I stand behind the statement that I have made, it is a fact and I stand behind it and we can move on to the purpose I suppose of why we are all here, to be fair and to be honest and to deal with the business of the government. That is one thing about the House, you can get up here and you can speak, you can tell the truth, you can be honest and forthright. You follow that path and it is not a problem, Mr. Speaker, when you walk the straight and narrow, you will make it. It might be difficult at times but you will make it.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has followed the path and, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy. None of us, sitting on this side of the House would want to do willingly what has to be done. It is not easy. I commend the Cabinet and our Premier for the job that they are doing; they are doing a fantastic job, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances. They are doing the best under our financial conditions and I am prouder still, Mr. Speaker, that we have so many of our female colleagues on this side of the House who contribute so greatly to the efficiency of this government. I applaud them because of their input, because of their knowledge and their ability, and I have always said, Mr. Speaker, that if you want the proper job done, to get a woman to do it. Get a woman to do it; they are pretty thorough and efficient.

I mean, I can say that because I worked for a female Cabinet Minister for five-and-a-half years. What ability to get things done. I remember when she went into Conception Bay South in 1989 there was sewer in the ditches, Mr. Speaker, all over the place. It was a monstrosity, Mr. Speaker, of mismanagement. That is what the problem was and she was faced with the problem of trying to rectify these conditions. There were demonstrations and petitions and rightly so, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine, in 1989 people were still bringing water in buckets and they are still doing it, Mr. Speaker, there is still a great need, but when you look back over the record and look at the millions of dollars that a Liberal Government put into my district, then, Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate indeed to have such capable people sitting on this side of the House. But more fortunate, Mr. Speaker, because we have those capable, very capable people who are sitting at the Cabinet table, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say `thank you' to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, for the support that he has given the area of Conception Bay South. He has done a tremendous job in having the people of Conception Bay South clean water to drink and he is always available, Mr. Speaker, to discuss any problems that exist in that district.

Mr. Speaker, people on my side now are starting to get restless and I can understand that because my female colleagues are always anxious to rise and present their views as to how they see things and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, in some cases it is completely different from the male view, completely different because they have a different insight into how things are done. Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct pleasure of travelling across this country, and I have met with every Status of Women Council in this country, and I am impressed with the contribution that they make to society, not only here in Newfoundland but in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I sit here wondering, as I said in the beginning, how far we have really come in 500 years, and I think back to my own father, who unfortunately passed away in 1984; I think about him and how he thought the world should be. You know, Mr. Speaker, he had a Grade 3 education. I asked him: How many years did you go to school? He said: I got book three. Book three, he said, because he did not have the opportunity that we have today.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, I come from a poor family of ten, but we all made it. I have relatives right across this country. In fact, I suppose if you don't have relatives across this country you are not a Newfoundlander, because for 500 years people have been leaving this Province. A lot of it has nothing to do with the economy. A lot of it has to do with a Newfoundlander's urge to travel and to see new things, acquire new skills, new abilities.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much time I have - hopefully it is another couple of hours - but things have quietened down; people have probably become interested.

I had started to talked about how my father had no education, and how he had said that, as time progressed and I got old enough to understand, he did not think that the public treasury would stand paying out all these monies, all these demands. One day, he said, the country would be broke.

Mr. Speaker, when be became sixty-five and got Old Age Security, he was the type of individual who said: Look, I will give back part of what I am getting because I can live on less than what I'm getting; because, he said, I have a great fear that this country is going to be in trouble.

Can you imagine an individual with a Grade 3 education who, thirty years ago, foresaw the kind of financial difficulties that this country was going to face? He had a Grade 3 education, and we have people today, especially on the other side of the House, who cannot, will not, and have not, understood the financial difficulties that we face. They want more money for health; they want more money for education; they want more money for everything under the sun, and I believe there should be a way in this world that the Official Opposition can be allowed to print money, because in order to meet their needs and their demands and their wishes they are going to have to print their own money. They are just going to have to print their own money.

I have watched them day after day after day question the Minister of Health about health care, and I was delighted to hear our Premier say: Yes, we do have stresses in health care. And we have had stresses in health care for a long time. I remember thirty years ago having to wait four and five hours to see a doctor - twenty-five or thirty years ago - that is not unusual.

Then they talk about appointments, as if the Minister of Health made the appointment. Imagine, a hospital is dirty. The Minister of Health is not cleaning the hospitals. Mr. Speaker, these are problems that are addressed by people in a situation who, I think, are doing a good job. We can forever and a day - everywhere we go in life, we can pick a hole in something if we really wanted to. I have noticed every time we make an announcement that is good for this Province, the Opposition gets in under a cloud, because they do not want to see the sun.

I remember their former leader saying: One day the sun will shine, and have-not will be no more. Well, Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, are doing everything within our power to ensure that the sun will shine, that one day we will be self-sufficient, that we will have a thriving economy. I hope that in a not-too-distant future we will go back to the employment standards of 1972 when the Tories took over, 6 per cent, 7 per cent unemployed in the Province. Amazing! We went from $750 million in direct debt to I think something like $6 billion or $7 billion when we came in, in 1989. We were paying $550 million in interest every year in 1989-1990, $12,000 a minute. Can you imagine? twelve thousand dollars a minute interest on the money that the Province owed. Absolutely fantastic! And we continue to struggle, trying to the best of our ability to deal with the monstrosity that we have. The Premier and his Cabinet are doing a superb job.

There is nobody on that side of the House who has any more sympathy than we do for the people of this Province. We have compassion, we have understanding, and we have a great desire to make things better for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. But always, when you read the papers, you listen to the media, it is doom-and-gloom. I really do hope with those ten editions of the new newspaper the Tory party is putting out, it will be positive news. I hope it will be. I am almost certain the Leader of the Opposition will make the front page of his own paper. I am certain of that. Because they are doing their own typesetting. That is the only way to do it, to do your own typesetting.

I suppose, in a few days or so, we are going to be doing the Budget Estimates. I know that that committee will undoubtedly go through the Estimates with a fine-tooth comb. Then, of course, we are going to come back and we are going to have some more debate on the pros and cons of why this was done and that was done and why this should not be done. But we have a Leader on this side of the House who is pretty determined to blaze new trails, to seek new investment, to make this Province a better province for all of us, and I believe he will do it.

When we campaigned in 1996 and we said that there would be a better tomorrow, we did not say there was going to be a better tomorrow immediately. It takes a lot of hard work to put us on the right track. But, Mr. Speaker, we are going to do it. You have to have hope, faith and determination, and we have them. We have all these credentials and we will make it. Every time we see an obstacle we lose sight of our goals. It is like the guy said, you had better keep your eye on the ball. Mr. Speaker, we will get there although it is not going to be easy.

Mr. Speaker, I know what the Opposition's role is - their role is to oppose, but I had thought it should have been done in a constructive manner. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they get skittish, they fall apart and they panic, but I guess they will get over that eventually.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that we live in the best Province in this country. We are all here because we choose to be here. We choose to be here because of all the attractions that we have and the lifestyle that we live. Mr. Speaker, it is going to take a lot of hard work to get to where we want to go but if we all try hard enough we will get there.

Thank you very much for your time.

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

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

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: We would not, on this side of the House, preclude the hon. member from continuing.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Sir, go ahead.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, go right ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the Chair understand that the hon. the Opposition House Leader is extending leave to the Member for Topsail?

MR. H. HODDER: I am granting leave to the member if he wishes to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Topsail have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: He does not have the first ten years done yet, he has 500 to go.

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

I have always been impressed with the Member for Waterford Valley. He has given many, many years of service to this part of the Province, as a teacher and as a mayor. He has many accomplishments and he is dedicated, he works hard but, Mr. Speaker, he sits on the wrong side of the House. He is a Liberal sitting on the wrong side of the House. But that does not say that he has not made a contribution, he has, and he should be given credit for it because, as I said, all of us are here to do the best possible job that we can do. We can antagonize each other if we want to, as I just did with my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, but never underestimate my colleague. He is a hard working individual. He has made a contribution to Conception Bay South. He is well known in sport. He is one of the first inductees into the Sports Hall of Fame. So, Mr. Speaker, anytime that I say anything that upsets the Member for Conception Bay South, that is fine. I do not blame him for getting upset. I would probably get upset, too.

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the only problem the Member for Conception Bay South has, he continues to use unparliamentary language.

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible) you can ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but have no fear, he will pay for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to the leave from the Member for Topsail, please. I understand he is standing up speaking on leave. We will now withdraw that leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I say to the hon. the Member for Topsail that leave has been withdrawn.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

There is only so much that we can tolerate. I thought the member was going to give us a year-by-year analysis of 500 years. He started off and said something about John Cabot and all about 1497. We have not even got John Cabot landed here yet, I say to the minister, and we are still looking out for him. I was expecting to hear great orations about Cabot Come Home Year and how this member has got all kinds of projects planned in his district. I have not heard one word about the plans for Conception Bay South to celebrate Come Home Year or the Cabot 500 celebrations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that the member for Conception Bay South has done a tremendous job in bring the issues forward. He has a lifetime of experience. He could give counselling to the member for Topsail, and I am sure he has given counselling to the member and he would continue to do that because he is such a dynamic person, works hard for his constituents, arrives here at the building every morning at 7:45 a.m. and that generally is the latest time he will arrive. He is a very diligent, very hard working, very confident member who, I can tell you, gets about thirty-five telephone calls a day and at the end of the day he has answered every single one of them. What a great member!

Now, Mr.Speaker, I want to talk about the Budget. This is the Budget Debate. I would be remiss if I did not note that the Member for Bonavista South forgot to note the estimates for Government House this year,and I wanted to remind him that in his orations that took him thirty minutes, I do not know whether he has changed his mind on the expenditures that Government House cost to this Province every year or whether he just simply forgot it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Lieutenant-Governor is from Bonavista Bay -

MR. H. HODDER: And maybe it is because this year, the member for Bonavista South is going to be in Bonavista welcoming Her Majesty the Queen, and the Lieutenant-Governor will be there. But I have to say to the House, in a time of fiscal restraint, we still find that at Government House, we can spend money for two gardeners down there. We pay one $30,593 and in the estimates here we have another one paid $24,752, and if my calculations are correct that is about $55,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the total expenditure for Government House there is still too much money being spent there. So, if the member opposite who is pretending to interject in the debate wants to get up and give his true feeling about expenditures at Government House, we will certainly look forward to his orations when his turn arrives.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to hon. members that we need to reflect on some of those expenditures and I just threw that one out as an example of where we could be probably curtailing some of the expenditures. I doubt if we should be employing a seamstress, for example, at Government House,at nearly $20,000 a year. These are the priorities that the government establishers, and at the same time, we find out health care is in jeopardy of being delivered in a timely and efficiency manner and there are, I am sure, expenditures that we could look at. For example, I just wanted to mention another expenditure that I noticed still in the Budget, it is in education.

Now, I want to compliment the government in that they have reduced the expenditures for the denominational education councils from about $950,000 a couple of years ago, they have them down to $596,900, this will be grants and subsidies to the three denominational educational councils.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that I am not one of those who says that we should not have any assemblance of religious education in the school system, but my position on education reform is well documented. It has been said here in the House, I said what I meant several years ago and I mean what I said therefore, nobody here expects me to be, shall we say, very supportive of a denominationally-based educational system.

I was not supportive at the time when Term 17 was being debated in this House and I am not supportive now, and when I still see us spending $596,900 on the denominational educational councils, then I say, you know, where are our priorities? Where are the real priorities, when we could be spending that kind of money to keep some schools open, to make sure that we have a strong curriculum in our school system, probably to assist for writing remedial education to some very needy students, but we still find that we can spend nearly $600,000 to support the denominational educational councils and I find that there is still something terribly wrong with out priorities, therefore, you know, if I were to make one suggestion I would suggest that we revisit the amount of money that we spend and we allocate to denominational educational councils, to the point where I know that the Term 17 amendment says that we should give them adequate funding but I have some difficulty with that, but in determining what is adequate to do the task that they have, I do believe that we still give that particular group too much money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment briefly as well on some of the other issues that are facing the Province. I do note that in the Budget documents that accompanied the Budget, the booklet called The Economy, the very last page where we have the section here that talks about Selected Economic Indicators Newfoundland and Labrador: 1993 - 1997 and, Mr. Speaker, this particular forecast is not a very positive picture. In fact, if you look at it, the GDP at market prices is predicted to go down by - 4.4 per cent. The Personal Income is predicted to go down by - 2.9 per cent. We are saying that Retail Trade in millions of dollars will be down this year 2.9 per cent. We do have one positive. We are saying that Capital Investment will go up by 7 per cent. Labour Force, will go down by .6 per cent this year. Employment is going to have a negative here of 1.9 per cent. In fact, we are saying here as well that Housing Starts will go down this year by - 6.3 per cent. The only or one of the two positive figures here is the Unemployment rate. That is predicted to go up from 19.4 per cent -it is a positive here and the Unemployment Rate, the annual average is predicted to be 20.5 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you look at that we ask some basic questions. We asked the question that has been asked on a number of occasions, as to whether or not these are the real Economic Indicators, or whether or not these figures are designed to present a picture that some time later on, we can say: well, we did much better than had been predicted. You know, I am reminded of an article last year. Last year after the Budget, there was a conference around the table of discussion on Channel 9, and appearing there were people like the Premier, Professor Wade Locke and others, and at that time the Budget prediction said that we were going to have - 4 per cent. In other words, we said that the economy would shrink or decline by over 4 per cent and then, we know that at the end of the year, that did not happen. Therefore, we ask the question: Are these statistics here designed to present the real picture, the real expectation or, is it designed to set up a scenario whereby we could say, we did much better than we thought we were going to do? In other words, is this data the real data or is this the data that is designed to paint a picture that says: We don't think we are going to do very well, and then when we probably have unemployment stay where it is, and not increase, we have again a thing we can put in our Red Book which says that we did so well?

Mr. Speaker, we want to just point out that last year professor Wade Locke said that the economy would do much better than the economic forecast in last year's Budget said it would do. He said it won't go down by 4 per cent, it will only go down by 2 per cent. Professor Wade Locke was right on. Instead of probably putting data in here that is designed, as some people would say, to set up scenarios - because we know that some particular people, or some people who have been commenting on this Budget, have called it a very crafty document. Very craftily done, as one of the hon. ministers was heard to say in the lobby after it was read here in the House. Very carefully crafted document, were the words.

Of course, if that is the case then, are we presenting the real picture to the people of the Province? Obviously last year we didn't. Professor Wade Locke did his analysis and said the economy would perform better than the government said it was going to do. Then the government says: We don't want to be negative. Let's examine the facts. Last year the government said: We are going to have a shrinking economy, we are going to go down by 4 per cent. Then when it did much better than that, actually, it only went down by 2 per cent, only half as much as it predicted, then it was able to say how good it was.

This government talks about negativity. Where can you find more examples of negativity than in the government's forecast and the selected economic indicators here? This is so negative that I would be afraid to show this to any potential investor in this Province, but here it is in black and white on the last page of the booklet called The Economy. I have it right here. Designed here to paint perhaps a better picture at the end of the year than might be indicated here. It doesn't worry about that. Then it looks over on this side of the House and it says the people on this side of the House are always being negative.

Here is a prime example of where the government - I can only say it, because anything that is written down here has to be a statement of its beliefs and principles. The government here seems to be setting itself up in such a way that at the end of the year it can say: We didn't do nearly as bad, we only declined by maybe 1 per cent or 2 per cent instead of the 4 per cent. That is what some people would say is deceptive finances. Perhaps that is what was meant when they said that this was a very well crafted document. So you can, again, get more examples of putting things in the report card that came out there a little while ago.

I wanted to also comment on the three-year budget. The Premier talks about a three-year budget plan. When we got the Budget we looked through it and we said: Okay, this is going to be a real big document this year because we are going to have a three-year budget plan. We anticipated a document that we would have to get our staff to be able to assist us to carry it to the fifth floor. We said this year's document is going to be a massive document.

We got the Budget for this year, and the other two years got summarized in two pages, so we were quite surprised. As the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board in his journeys throughout the Province at very expensive dollars from the taxpayers, and very scarce dollars, he went around and he said: I want to listen to you, and I want to tell you that we want to have a three-year budget. Tell us what you want. We don't want to be doing this

consultation all the time but let us know what you want, and they did. They said: Well, we are going to have a three-year document.

What happened to the three-year document? I must be missing a lot of pages in the booklet I have here because, as hon. members know, we have one page each for the second and the third year. All we have here is a bunch of figures that are thrown together as guesstimates. There is no substantive documentation. They are all guesstimates. They could have been done by any good Grade XII student in Economics, because all you had to do was simply look at where the trends are and add on or subtract the appropriate percentages and you would come up with that. That is not really much by way of a budget document.

We have the Estimates for this year, and then we have the guesstimates for the next two years. So we have to make a point of what we are talking about, estimates or guesstimates. We have Estimates for '97 and guesstimates for '98 and '99, so we have to call (inaudible). There is no three-year budget plan. It does not exist. Therefore, you have to ask yourself whether or not the people of this Province have been well served by that kind of rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, we also wanted to talk about some of the things that have happened without consultation. I wanted to refer just for a moment to the changes that are occurring in the home care system. I consulted with the home care organizations and they tell me that there was no consultation whatsoever, no consultation with parents, no consultation with the extended family members, and that when they presented themselves at the various hearings that the Minister of Finance was doing, the idea that there would be extensive cuts in the home care budgets and that we would, in short, have consultations with them before any changes were made, that they certainly have felt that the last couple of weeks they have not been adequately consulted by anybody.

Mr. Speaker, we have in the Budget the statement made by the Minister of Finance relative to student parents attending Memorial University or any other institution. We know that some of the parents who are going to Memorial University find themselves in a position whereby they are recipients of social services through no fault of their own.

I talked a few days ago to a young mother of three children who, about two years ago, found herself in a situation whereby she would be required to raise them on her own. She had a choice: she could stay at home and do nothing, and she could get her social assistance every month and her housing would be provided, or she could go and take hold of her situation and decide that she was going to go back to school. She chose to go back to school, knowing that if she stayed home she would have been able to live on social services. She did not want that for her family, so she chose to go back to Memorial University. She is now into her third year of studies, and she has incurred an average of $3,000 a semester in student loans.

What this government in this Budget has said is that they aren't happy with that. They are saying that all those people who are getting social services and going to Memorial University, single mothers who find themselves in desperate circumstances, you must take up all of your student loan before you get any assistance from social services. What that means to a mother and her three children is that when she graduates she will owe about $50,000.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

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

I was not aware of the message that you were communicating to me and if you wish to announce the questions for the Late Show then go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being past the hour of 4:00 p.m. on a Thursday I will announce the questions for the Late Show:

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health, re my question on the shortage of doctors. Signed by the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, re pay equity.

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, re my question on provincial parks. The hon. Member for St. John's South.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the issue facing single mothers and in some cases single fathers who are students at Memorial University. Of course - single parents, moms and dads. Mr. Speaker, these people should be complimented. They should be encouraged. In other words, they are saying that if you do nothing for us we can stay home, you can look after us and you will do that as long as we want to stay on the system. Instead of that they are going to take hold of their lives and they are saying we are going to go back to school. What we are saying to them now, instead of having student loans of $25,000 or $30,000 they are going to have student loans of $50,000, $60,000. Mr. Speaker, we have to do more for these people, a majority of whom are single mothers. A great majority of them, maybe 90 per cent of them, are single mothers. So we have to say to them: we want you to provide an opportunity for yourself, an opportunity for your children, provide a learning environment for the whole family and we want you to be able to get out of the circumstances that you are now in.

All they are saying is, would you please go and let us have access to the normal amount of funding we would get. We will pay our tuition and we will pay our other expenses out of our student loans. They are not saying we don't want student loans. No single parent is saying they don't want to have to take on student loans. What they are saying is let the student loans, that we will receive, pay for those expenditures that are related to going to school. For example, tuition, transportation to and from the institute of learning, the books that are required and other related expenditures. So therefore they will take their student loans and when we are trying to reach to people who are in great need, we have to look at the issue of single parents and I do say to this government that we have taken a sizable step backwards, a very big step backwards when we have changed the whole arrangement of funding for single parents and in particular since the majority of these people are indeed single mothers.

Mr. Speaker, there are a great many other issues. The whole issue of the out-migration that has occurred. We have has some discussion in recent days here in the House about the issues related to out-migration and there is hardly a member of this House who has not got some family member who has had to move to other parts of this country. So, out-migration is a big issue for many families in this Province and when we look at the fact that we have in the last several years, lost a net of 17,000 in the population of this Province we have to express great concern. Of course, we look at what the premier has said, his primary concern he said, is on the issue of the transfer payments. That is one concern, but you know when our young people are moving there is another concern as well. When our young people move these are the people of the next generation. These are the people who are in their child bearing years in many cases, so we are transferring a whole next generation to other parts of Canada. Newfoundland has always been a Province that has had sizeable numbers of its population moving on, but if you look at the stats for the country, you will find that we are the only Province where we have a negative growth. Certainly, we have to be as a people very, very concerned about that kind of negativity.

Mr. Speaker, we look at Canada, Canada as a whole in the population change as shown in the 1996 census, Canada had a population change of 5.7 per cent compared to 1991. Newfoundland had a negative of 2.9 almost three per cent negative growth, the only province in Canada. But while some of that might be attributed to the closure of the ground fish industry, a good bit of it is reflective of the lack of job opportunities in this Province. Now, we had a Prime Minister of Canada elected in 1993, elected on promise of jobs. He said jobs and jobs and jobs is what they were going to produce in this country. I remember watching television when Kim Campbell, who was the Prime Minister at the time, said that she felt that the unemployment rate might stay relatively where it was for the next numbers of years and the Prime Minister, the Liberal leader at the time, said that that was all negativity and he promised he would deliver a lot more. Well, we have seen what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. Where are the jobs that the Prime Minister promised? Where are they for young Newfoundlanders and young Labradorians? Of course, we know what has happened, British Columbia has become the province of choice for many people who are on the move you might say, going from this Province to other provinces. We also know that many of our young sons and daughters have moved out to Alberta, very few have gone to Saskatchewan, but a fair number have gone to Alberta, Alberta and British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, what that tells us is that these young people have lost faith in this Province. When the Prime Minister of today campaigned in 1993 on jobs, jobs, jobs, we want to say to the MPs from Newfoundland: Where is the delivery? They did not deliver the jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevance, relevance.

MR. H. HODDER: We want to say to all hon. members that in this Province, until we can find jobs for our young people, then we are going to continue to have the same kind of situations that we have now.

Mr. Speaker, the population decline is very expensive. An editorial in The Evening Telegram on April 17 addressed that very issue. Of course, it is expensive in terms of the financial implications, it is expensive in terms of the school system, when we have declining communities, it is expensive in terms of the families that are involved, and it is expensive in terms of our opportunity for real growth in the future as a province. Therefore everybody today is focusing on the fact that Newfoundland is losing its next generation. The next generation of Newfoundlanders will be located in some other province.

MR. SPEAKER (Walsh): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. H. HODDER: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise to I guess begin some comments on the Budget in the half-hour debate that each member has.

My colleague for Waterford Valley was on to probably one of the most disturbing trends that is taking place in the Province in recent times, and that is the out-migration. What was predicted by Stats Canada in last year's out-migration statistics was that by the year 2016 some 39,000 people will have left this Province - that is twenty years from now -, and that by the year 2005 some 15,000 people would have left. The reality is that we are on a faster track than that, we are on a more slippery slope. In a period of five years, where there was only supposed to be 7,000 or 8,000 people who have left, according to Stats Canada, some 17,000 people have left. What is even scarier about it is that by the year 2016 how many above 39,000 people will have left this Province?

We are going through no doubt probably one of the most significant periods of change that this Province has ever seen. The minister knows it, he is dealing with it, he is dealing with change in the education system. It was articulated no better when - I think it was probably the first sitting of the House after I was elected as a new member in 1993, when then-Premier Clyde Wells stood and said that his government was a government that was managing decline, and we have been managing decline ever since.

The question that I asked yesterday to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and the Premier, was: What would be the impact, according to the present formula, on transfer and equalization, 17,000 people leaving, or just 15,000 people have left, the impact upon federal transfers would be somewhere in the vicinity of $52 million. Can you imagine today trying to find $52 million in our present financial state based upon the amount of people who are leaving the Province?

In former statements the Premier said the reality that people are leaving the Province is because of the down sizing in the fishery, the closure of the fishery. That is only somewhat true. About 70 per cent of the people who have left this Province in the last five years - these are not my numbers, these are Stats Can's numbers - are university graduates, graduates from post-secondary institutions. Where are they gone? They are gone west, we know that, but the reason why they are gone is even more important.

The reason why they are gone is because all of us in here have not created the opportunities that we should have created. That is the reason why people are leaving, young people, educated, bright people. The leaders of tomorrow are in bar rooms in Toronto, in the board rooms in Alberta, when they should be here, right here.

When I look at the Terra Nova agreement, and in the Estimates Committee meetings last night in questioning the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, where he said clearly that the government on the one hand decided to take more in royalties and on the other hand gave up in asking for and demanding development opportunities on fabrication for contractors who could fabricate and do the work required in an effort to make it more globally competitive is what was said to me last night in questions, then it is no wonder people are leaving.

The Premier makes a statement that obviously shows he does not know the difference, at least in his statement - I am convinced that he does, but his statement did not say it - that he does not know the difference between a royalty regime on Voisey's Bay and a mining tax on the other side of it. What sort of confidence does that instill in people who are leaving this Province for no other reason, because they have $42,000 and $43,000 student loans and have to find some way of making a living, some way of paying it back.

I am sure all of us know somebody who has had to leave recently. My sister-in-law is an example, twenty-seven years old, married three years to my brother, a huge student loan, both of them just starting out in life really, took off on Boxing Day to go to Korea to teach English as a second language for the next year, for no other reason than there was not a single opportunity in this Province that existed for her. In one year she put out some 450 - 500 applications to every school board in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the area in which she lived, in Kilbride, she was on every substituting list, every school list. She beat the bushes wherever she went, but not a single opportunity could she find for herself. So in an effort to get out from behind the eight-ball, the decision was made for a young married couple to split up for a year, one to go to Korea and one to stay here. That is not an oddity. That is not something that is not occurring daily. That is something that is occurring at a tremendous rate, and it is a rate that is speeding up.

Now no government can solve the problem by itself, and any government that believes that it can solve the problem by itself doesn't know the responsibility of governing; and no Opposition member can solve the problem by himself. The question that has been asked of government on this very important issue is a simple one: Admit there is a problem, and admit it now.

You take $52 million from the Budget this year because of a 17,000 person decrease. What about five years from now when it comes up to 36,000 or 37,000 and we have to find $130 million or $140 million to maintain health care services for an aging population, to maintain educational services? At some time and at some point all of us in this Chamber are going to have to come together on this issue because it will be forced upon us. We are almost there now.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, I believe the name of her new department is, made a statement yesterday with respect to student employment, and this side of the House congratulated her because there was a specific allotment made for student jobs double what was made in recent times in terms of actual dollars, and we complimented government for that, of taking that initiative and recognizing that as a priority and making an investment into a sector of our society, young graduates, or young people who want to graduate.

The other thing that was said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Thursday, and now 4:30 p.m., it is time for the Late Show.

MR. SPEAKER: Three questions are on for the Late Show today.

To the Minister of Health: I am dissatisfied with your answer with respect to the shortage of doctors, from the Member for Conception Bay South.

The second question on for this evening: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister for the Status of Women with respect to pay equity, from the Member for Waterford Valley.

The third question for the evening is: Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation with respect to my question on provincial parks, from the Member for St. John's South.

The first question for the evening, the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say to the minister again that in the last few days, in Corner Brook, in Central Newfoundland there is great concern by rural doctors from the President of the Association, and I have watched two interviews in the last two nights concerning doctors for our Province and I would just like to know, Minister, where we are with recruitment of physicians for rural Newfoundland. Are we making progress, are we not making progress and have we really come up with any doctors whom we could place in rural Newfoundland at this particular point in time or, can we expect any? One suggestion was that, it would take at least up to six months to probably get a doctor, bring him into the Province. Do we have anybody or do we not?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question this afternoon because, believe it or not, I think it is one of the more serious issues we have and it is one of the most civilized and intelligent questions that the hon. member has asked for a long time in this House. He has asked the question: What is it are we doing and, to what extent can we predict some success in trying to get doctors to serve in rural Newfoundland? So to answer the question in the two or three minutes that I have let me tell him what we are doing.

I guess, about a year after I went into the portfolio of Health, we recognized a problem that had been long-standing and that was, compensation for rural doctors. So we addressed it by putting in the bonus program. We built on that this year by putting another $2.6 million into the rural initiative package and, the question I guess he asks, or part of the question: Is that going to have any effect? Is it going to help us recruit doctors to rural Newfoundland and what can we do on any type of any other extraordinary basis to get doctors to rural Newfoundland?

To the first part of it, I believe the compensation package that averages about $30,000 on an average for a rural doctor in the last two years we have put in, I think in time will have an impact on encouraging our own students to stay in the Province to a greater degree and it will encourage those who are already in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, to stay and work in those areas. The real problem we have, Mr. Speaker, is this, that in Canada today, we are competing in an international marketplace for doctors. The Americans, about four or five years ago decided to re-balance the doctor population in their country because of the exorbitant high cost of health care.

The US always had a ratio traditionally of 80 per cent specialists working in their health care system and 20 per cent family practice. They decided as a country that they wanted to get to what we were in Canada which is traditionally 50 per cent of specialists and 50 per cent GPs. Our ratio in Newfoundland at the moment I think is 49.7 per cent specialists and 50.3 per cent GPs, so we are 50-50 basically. As a result of the way the Americans are going, they are literally as a sponge soaking up doctors not only in Canada, of which we are finding the effects but also in other places in Europe. So it has done two things to us, Mr. Speaker.

It has caused doctors in areas from which we would traditionally recruit them, not to come here because they can go to the States and get more money so our traditional base of getting doctors like South Africa, England, Ireland and those places and Australia, are drying up and is taking the doctors that we have currently in the Province and drawing them down across the border. I can tell the hon. member that last week, when I was sitting in Halifax Airport, I saw a young lady who is graduating this year from our medical school and has a two-year residency done, she and her husband came by, and I know them very well, they are sort of friends and I said: Where are you going, I am going home - I was just away for a couple of weeks, not for the six trips but just for one of the six to which you referred. I said: Where are you going? Oh, they said, we are changing flights here, we are going to Tennessee because we have a job offer from down there that is going to pay off my bursary, give me $150,000 US a year, to work in the system, forty-hour week, pay my malpractice insurance, blah, blah, blah. So that is the type of situation we are in, that is the circumstance we are up against.

Northern Ontario has put in place recently a hired hand, who is not a doctor, to recruit doctors for rural Ontario. Rural Ontario, Mr. Speaker, the most rural part in Ontario would probably be bigger than the city of St. John's. They have in place a gentleman - I can tell you his name. He used to work with Newfoundland Power here years ago. A Newfoundlander hired to recruit doctors for Northern Ontario. Believe it or not, 25 per cent of his success rate to date, in the short period he has been working, has been getting doctors to come from Newfoundland to go up there. So that's the type of thing we are working against. These people are paying big bucks in terms of bonuses.

I can tell the hon. member that I chatted last night with the interim CEO of the Western Health Care Board. He just came from a CEO's position in Edmonton. When he left - he said six months ago in Edmonton - they had sixty vacant rural spots in Alberta. Now Alberta is a little more like ourselves in terms of rurality. They are more rural, rural. So the problem we have, Mr. Speaker, is not a problem that is confined to us. It is an international marketplace problem we have and I believe, to answer the gentleman's question in conclusion, that the incentives that we put in place will help but I believe it is a long range problem. It has been with us thirty years and it is going to be with us for some time to come. It will take the cooperation and the collaboration of the people who work in health care, the boards, the town councils, as representing their communities and all of the stakeholders out there who have an interest in the Province generally, to cooperate and work together as we shared last night in Port aux Basques, to ensure that we get the job done.

I will conclude by giving an example of one of the initiatives that the town council in Port aux Basques shared with us last night that they were doing. They said they are putting their hospital, as a facility, the complete hospital and all its history and capacity and everything on the international web site so that people scanning the web, who might be interested in looking for a job as a doctor can see what their facility is like and probably be encouraged to look at coming to their town, when they figure out where it is.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing the best we can. We must do more and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: - I believe we will have good results as a result of it.

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

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

I wanted to rise again this afternoon and go back to questions I was asking earlier today relative to the issue of the pay equity situation that is being faced by the Province. We don't want to belabour the issue of the report that the Province has.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in 1988 the administration of Brian Peckford did make commitments relative to pay equity. We know that the government of Clyde Wells promised to continue with these commitments. All that is contained in the arbitration report which I am sure the minister has read very, very thoroughly. What does concern us is the implications and the messages that are being sent. The messages being sent is that in Newfoundland and Labrador it is better to be male and working in the public sector than it is to be female and working in the public sector or working for any employer for that matter.

I know the minister here and I have known the minister for a long time. I don't hold back the fact that I have great respect for her in terms of the contribution she has made to promoting equality of men and women in this Province, particularly as a woman promoting the issues of women in this Province. I just say to her though - the route that she has taken - I know how she must feel about it. I know that the route which she has taken must cause her some anxiety because clearly in this particular case we have the adverse economic impact on female employees.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister: we can't condone the continuation of discriminatory actions against female workers in this Province. The Constitution demands that we treat males and females equally.

I want to ask the minister: Are there any other alternatives that have been put forward by the minister? For example, can there be compromises? Can there be some negotiation that can be done? Can we reach a settlement? Because at the end of the appeal procedure we still have to solve this problem. We still must solve the problem. The appeal procedure will not solve the problem for us. The issue will still be there. While I compliment the government, and governments of Brian Peckford and others, which have said we have to address this issue - and we know the minister has been a strong advocate for equality. But in this particular issue, taking this to the appeal court, I do believe that we are correct in asking the minister: Have there been other issues and other possibilities explored? Is this the only route that can be explored? Are we pursing other alternatives, seeking compromises on this issue, rather than taking one single route of going to the appeal procedure?

Is it possible that we could have a meeting of the minds, recognizing the budgetary restraint, recognizing the intent of the public service restraint act of 1991, and recognizing the need for us, as a province, to send a very clear message that in Newfoundland and Labrador we are not prepared to compromise on the intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to discriminating either in a direct sense or an indirect sense when it comes to employment, and in particular, discriminating against female workers.

The commitment that was made in 1988 is very clear. The definition says that: We will adopt a compensation practice based on the relative value of the work performed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. H. HODDER: - irrespective of the employee's gender. We ask the minister if she could perhaps explore a little further some of the answers she gave today.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would be very concerned indeed, if the hon. members or the general public were somehow misreading or perhaps not understanding the messages and the implications that have been sent by the government decision to appeal this particular arbitration award hearing.

I want to reiterate and say very clearly that government's decision to appeal is based purely on the judicial aspect of this case, which is the opinion and the advice that we have been given by the lawyers in the Department of Justice that government should appeal this particular decision because of the nature of the decision and the way it was arrived at. I believe that, as a government, we have a responsibility to take that advice, given the financial implications of doing otherwise.

I want to say, that in no way reflects on government's commitment to the principle of pay equity nor to the practice that we have established in implementing pay equity. From the time that the original legislation, the fiscal restraint legislation, was implemented in 1991, it served to really delay the implementation of pay equity and, in that respect, the previous government and this government have followed through with implementing pay equity. It has followed through from year to year, it has followed through in this current fiscal year, up to the point of allocating $27 million which, over the course of the next three years, will amount to a $50 million actual expenditure on pay equity adjustments, and I think this is a very significant and a very telling indication of this governments commitment to pay equity in the public sector in this Province.

Now, the member has asked whether we will or whether we have looked at other alternatives here to appealing this particular decision. I should simply say that I believe our first response has to be to appeal the decision, as we have been advised to do by the Department of Justice, but also say to you that the government of this Province has negotiated pay equity. I believe we are the only Province in the country that has negotiated pay equity arrangements with its public sector, and I think that is a very significant achievement.

So, we will continue on the course that we have established here with pay equity. I believe that we are doing it responsibly and well, but, in the meantime, we will also proceed to respond to the advice that we have been given in this particular matter, to appeal the decision on a legal basis and to let the courts decide and then determine where we are to proceed from here as a government.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minster of Tourism. I had asked the minister previously what she was basing her assessment of the value of each of the parks on considering the fact that she did not have this information readily available, the investment into the parks over the years, Mr. Speaker. I would like for the minister to give us today a more definitive answer on, first of all, when she is going to be able to give us the value of the parks, the value of the investment by the people of our Province into the parks over the years; and, secondly, what she is basing her assessment of the value of these parks on when she sells these parks, or privatizes these parks; and whether or not she feels that the value she is going to get from these parks is going to compare with the value of the investment into the parks by the people of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My answer today is very similar to the answer when the question was previously posed, that when we have all of the information gathered, the information will be appropriately provided. At this time, it would not be appropriate to be providing the information on the current proposals, because these proposals are now being evaluated; and, of course, these proposals, as happens when you ask for business proposals, are treated with the greatest of respect and confidentiality and they would not be a matter of public knowledge.

Any information that we can give to the hon. member will be given at the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would put the motion before the House, but I want to tell the hon. gentleman that we are back on the Budget tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m., after we have had some significant announcements by ministers.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.