The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Yesterday, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a point of privilege with respect to the following remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Health, and I quote from Hansard of November 25, page 1314. "In response to the member's preamble I would like to ask the question: Is this the same member who criticised this government's allocation of a new $3 million into the Health Care Corporation to cope and to try and address these very same issues?"

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his point of privilege states - again I quote from Hansard: "The Minister of Health, yesterday insinuated in this House and to the press, in a direct statement just outside the doors of the House of Assembly, that I opposed the expenditure of $3 million to cardiac care. A statement, Mr. Speaker, that was malicious and untrue. Everyone knows I have carried the battle for over four years for extra funding for the area of cardiac care. I ask the minister, will she stand in her place and withdraw that statement?" That is the Hansard of November 26, page 1.

As it has been frequently stated in this House: Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by the House and by the Members of the House individually, without which they could not discharge their function; and I refer you to Beauchesne, sixth edition, page 11.

These rights exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. The Speaker of the House of Commons stated in 1971 and debates of page 5338, that Parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House and a right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member. It has been said as well of course that: the question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament, it is essential to the functioning of the institution that members be free to debate the issues raised without hindrance. However, they must adhere to the proprieties of the House. Often of course, in the cut and thrust of debate, statements are made which offend or disturb members. When this occurs, members usually react by requesting a withdrawal.

As was said by the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1987: Something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive but, it may not be a question of privilege unless the comments actually impinge upon the ability of the members of Parliament to do their job properly.

Similarly, "A dispute arising between two members, as to allegation of facts, does not fulfil the condition of parliamentary privilege." I refer you to Beauchesne, §31.(1).

It appears in this case to the Chair that there is both a dispute between two hon. members about what was said at some time by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is offended by the hon. minister's statements; but in both cases, in the opinion of the Chair, a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

Before we go to the Orders of the Day, I want to welcome to the House 100 Level I, Level II and Level III Democracy and Canadian Issues classes from the Carbonear Integrated Collegiate, and they are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Les Yetman, Mr. Cal Harwood, Ms Kim Welsh, and Mr. Ford Sparkes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well we have in the galleries today, and I want to welcome these people: Mayor Walwin Blackmore, Deputy Mayor Bob King, Town Manager Mike Pinsent, and town engineer, Jeff Saunders, from the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I believe we have sitting in the Speaker's Gallery today Senator William Rompkey, and I would like to welcome him as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly about the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Blood System in Canada, submitted by the hon. Mr. Justice Horace Krever and made public yesterday by my federal colleague, the hon. Allan Rock.

Mr. Speaker, my first thoughts today are with our fellow Canadians who have sustained injury due to the contamination of the blood supply, as well as with their families. As we are a part of the national blood system, I would like to express, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, our sincere sorrow and regret to those individuals and their families for the injury and anxiety that this has caused and continues to cause them. I know that this has been a very difficult time for them.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Judge Krever for his comprehensive report. I believe his advice and recommendations will be very important to us as we continue to design and establish a new integrated blood system for Canada.

A number of his recommendations deal with the future blood system. I am pleased that these recommendations are generally in keeping with the directions that my ministerial colleagues and I are pursuing in the establishment of a new blood system.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to support the recognition which Judge Krever gave Canada's blood donors in his report. I agree with him, that these blood donors make a very essential contribution to the well-being of our fellow citizens. I would encourage all our citizens who can give the gift of life, to do so in the interest of all citizens who require blood.

Mr. Speaker, since Judge Krever was appointed in 1993, he carried out a thorough examination of all aspects of the blood system. My federal, provincial and territorial colleagues and I now have to put in place a process to address his long-awaited recommendations.

It would not be prudent at this time to enter into a detailed discussion of the recommendations, until we have had an opportunity to review them in more detail, as many of these issues are extremely complex.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is one recommendation that we have to review very quickly and that is Judge Krever's first recommendation for compensation for those people who sustained blood-related injuries.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to proceed with a compensation or assistance plan, it would clearly require considerable financial resources. It would be beyond the fiscal capacity of this Province to proceed alone on such a recommendation. However, since we have a national blood system, it is imperative that this issue be reviewed by federal, provincial and territorial ministers on a collaborative basis.

Mr. Speaker, as Ministers of Health, we have to review this very important issue as quickly and collectively as we can. Accordingly, I will be seeking an early meeting with my federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to review this recommendation, in particular, as well as to establish a process to review the recommendations in general.

Mr. Speaker, as ministers, we share a common concern for the people adversely affected by the blood system. As well, we share a common objective to maintain and protect the health of Canadians by working together in this partnership.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement today and would like to say, with the minister, that we feel the same sorrow that she does for people who have been affected by the tainted blood, for the families and for the victims who have lost their lives because of this. We can only hope and can only urge the minister that she and her counterparts would certainly meet as soon as possible to see what can be done in the way of compensation to some of the families affected. As well, Mr. Speaker, we would want to also thank the many people, especially those in Newfoundland and Labrador, who so freely over the last number of years have given the gift of life in giving their blood; and I sincerely, on behalf of our party, want to thank those people today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, I share the sorrow and regret of what has happened to the individuals who suffer from HIV and from Hepatitis B as a result of the failure of the blood system. I regret that the minister's statement does not amount to an apology to the people who are affected and that she has not taken the lead of the Government of Canada in that regard. I am also disappointed that, with respect to compensation, all she has said is she wants to review the recommendation. I would like to hear a commitment to a compensation program and the working out of the details of that with the Federal Government.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the government ensure that the people who have already been forced to sign a no suit clause in order to get compensation before, be compensated at the same level as others, and ask the government, as well, to consider the Recommendations 46 to 50 of the Krever Commission Report which claims -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - the loss of federal health transfers to the provinces for not being able to provide sufficient resource for public health service in the Province, that they look at that recommendation and ask the Federal Government to restore those.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 3, 1997, government announced the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway following the successful completion of negotiations between the Province and Ottawa on the transfer of responsibility for the Labrador coastal boat service from the Federal to the Provincial Government.

Today, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that this government will be setting up a dedicated fund for the highway and the maintenance of ferry services in Labrador. This fund, to be known as the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, will allow all monies for the project to be separate and apart from other general government revenues.

This is an extraordinary action by government. Usually, in such cases, government would simply enter the funding, in this case a total of approximately $353 million, into general revenue. Instead, this money will be focused on a sole purpose: the development of a modern transportation infrastructure for the people of Labrador.

The first two phases of the Trans-Labrador Highway construction will be completed over the next six years. Phase 1 will see the completion of the road between Happy Valley - Goose Bay and Labrador West, and will include environmental assessment, planning and engineering for Phase 2. Mr. Speaker, this work has already begun. This past summer we have spent almost $20 million to make huge improvements to the existing road from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Labrador West.

Phase 2 will include the construction of the link from Cartwright to Red Bay. Construction will begin as soon as the design work and environmental process are completed, as early as 1998. Environmental assessment, planning and engineering for the final phase will begin during this period.

The Trans-Labrador Highway, is one of several new initiatives we have taken since February 1996 to meet the real needs of the people of Labrador. These include: a new Labrador Regional Hospital located in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; new schools in Nain, Rigolet, and Hopedale; a sales tax rebate for housing construction in Labrador; a reduction in tobacco tax rate for southern Labrador and Labrador West; the reinstatement of the Labrador Air Subsidy, of particular benefit to the South Coast.

This government agrees with the people of Labrador when they say that the Trans-Labrador Highway, along with the land claims settlement, is the key to opening up Labrador's tremendous economic potential.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill was introduced as Bill 30. It is far from new news - announced on April 3. More than one year ago in the House a statement was delivered that there would be a paved highway through Labrador in ten years. I asked at the time how much money were we getting from Ottawa, and the current Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would not say. She said: It is not that I do not know, it is that I will not say. Because the cost of doing it was in the hundreds of millions.

The $353 million, with a $12 million a year subsidy for the Labrador ferry service that will need to be continued, with $60 million to do the portion from Churchill to Goose Bay, an estimated minimum of $130 million, that is to put a gravel road from Cartwright to Red Bay, there is going to be an opening from Goose Bay to Cartwright with no money allowed to do that section of the highway. We have a ferry service we have to maintain, we are hundreds of millions of dollars short. We sold out a ferry service to Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - with no money to complete the job. I think it is an atrocity –

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is disgraceful that that happened, and I said to the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - said to the minister at the time: Do not sell us short like you did -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - on so many other projects before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Does the hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, first of all, that I am pleased the government is going to put this fund into a separate revenue for Labrador to see this development, I guess, proceed. I was really concerned when I thought it was going to be part of Consolidated Revenue. Because we want to ensure that every cent of this money, no matter how it is spent, that it is spent for the benefit of the people in my district, and all the people in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We have been for years and years with an inadequate transportation system throughout my district and all across Labrador, and whether it is $340 million in a highway today or $600 million, we need it, and we need now. We cannot wait and see this project delayed any longer, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member requesting leave?

By leave.

MS JONES: We want to see this project proceed as soon as possible. We cannot be held up by petty details. And right now I want to say that in the last couple of years it has been tremendously difficult for us with the marine service sector. We need to have that service improved, and every dollar that is there, whether it be revenues, whether it be interest, whether it be whatever, we are going to ensure that it is spent, and it is spent for the benefit of the people in Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health.

The Krever Report urged the Federal and Provincial Governments to devise no-fault compensation for victims so they would not be put through the court system. The federal minister, Allan Rock, said he has to meet with his provincial counterparts. I ask the minister if her department and the government support a compensation program for those who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood.

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

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

I think in my Ministerial Statement earlier I did say that I would be urging a meeting with my colleagues in the new year to address the issue of compensation. I also said that this Province alone could not handle the financial responsibility; that is one of the reasons why we are part of a national health care system, and these very issues will be important to all of us, including all of the other smaller provinces which will have the very same issues.

I will certainly take the lead to see that this particular component and recommendation is dealt with as quickly as possible.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not something that was just thrust upon us yesterday. We knew for some time what has been happening. Since 1993, the Krever Inquiry has been going on, and this government has dragged its feet and was the last Province to agree to compensation for victims and families of those who contracted HIV from tainted blood. Nova Scotia took the lead, and we were the last to recognize the victims through compensation.

I ask the minister: Would she give a commitment that this government will act immediately and do our part - we do not expect you to do it for all of Canada, but do our part at least - to compensate hepatitis C victims, and the spouses and children of those who have died from AIDS, and not wait for the Federal Government to act.

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

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

This is a very serious and important issue, and I think it is important for the people of the Province as well as the public to know generally that we, as government leaders, have not been waiting for the Krever Inquiry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have put in place a very solid component and the ability to put in place a national blood agency, that is moving along very well and we are hoping to have it up and running within the next couple of months.

So, we have not been sitting back waiting because we know it is too important. It is too important to the people that are infected, Mr. Speaker, and it is too important to the rest of us as Canadians that have to depend on a national blood agency.

We did provide a compensation package for HIV victims and their families and we will certainly support whatever initiative that is put forward with my colleagues, as part of a national publicly-funded health care system.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All the minister expresses here is sorrow and regret and certainly, I welcome that, because we all feel sorrow and regret. She says it is not prudent to enter into detailed discussions - we do not want detailed discussions, we just want - as Justice Krever said, `It is not justified for government to have already compensated AIDS victims, you continue to balk at compensation for those infected with Hepatitis C.' In fact, he says there is a moral obligation to consider compensation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that the Red Cross and the federal and provincial health departments, according to Justice Krever, failed to act quickly and were contemptuous of consumers, can the minister tell us today, if government will met this moral obligation to those people affected?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will say again on behalf of government and members on this side of the House, that we do offer our sincere sympathy and regrets to the families involved. It has been a very difficult time for them. And you can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will well represent the citizens of this Province in their issues related to Hepatitis C and in identifying whatever compensation is deemed appropriate, when we meet as a part of a national blood agency, as a part of a national publicly-funded health care system. I will give that commitment here today, to the people of the Province and to the House.

I do believe there are moral issues involved here, Mr. Speaker. People's lives are involved, and I will do my very best there, as I am doing in this Province today, to represent the views and the issues of all, including those, and the families affected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Red Cross and the federal health minister have apologized. The federal health minister said, `The Federal Government accepts its share of responsibility for past shortcomings in the system.'

I ask the minister: Will she stand in her place today and do the same?

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

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

If my memory serves me correctly, the whole process to screen for HIV and AIDS was put in place on November 4, 1985. Since that period of time, a number of things have happened, including the Krever Inquiry, and I have said today, that I offer my sincere regrets and sympathy and that I will do my very best to represent the people and the families of this Province as part of a publicly-funded system. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Province will do its share, will maintain its responsibility, will do what it has to do as a part of a system that will look at compensating these victims.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not talking about details. We are not talking about what the financial compensation is. I just asked the minister simply: Would you stand and do what the federal minister has done and say you apologize on behalf of this government and that you will accept responsibility for the shortcomings in the system that were the responsibility of the provincial Department of Health? That is all I am asking. Will you do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a most eloquent way, in the statement of the Minister of Health, very sincerely given, has expressed deep regret to those who have suffered loss of health and loss of life as a result of the mistakes made in guaranteeing an appropriate screening of blood in this country and in this Province, and that is an apology from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to all of the families and all of the individuals who have been affected, those who have died, those who continue to live in very difficult circumstances, and that is given without qualification.

Mr. Speaker, as to the question as to whether or not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will participate in compensation for those who have been affected, the minister said very clearly the answer is yes.

I would ask the House to recognize that the Minister of Health of Newfoundland and Labrador today is taking on fully the responsibility to deal with all of the issues arriving out of the Krever Commission Report. I would ask the people of this Province to recognize something I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to recognize. This is a problem that goes back to 1985. We are not standing in judgement of those who were in office in 1985. We are accepting our responsibility today. We are saying -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - we want to fill our role in providing compensation. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, please -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - on this one, avoid politics.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a question of the Premier. He stood, and I accepted that apology that he gave on behalf of this Province. Because Justice Krever said the provincial department has a responsibility. They failed to act quickly and they were contemptuous of consumers. There are certain responsibilities. Sharing in a process is one thing. I asked him will he do what the federal minister, Allan Rock, has done, and accept their share of the responsibility for the shortcomings in the system that were the responsibility of the provincial Department of Health. That is all I am asking, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are times when the House is indeed not well served by the lack of a camera that can give full coverage of all that occurs in this place. This is one of those times. We have had a Minister of Health make, I believe, a sincere statement on behalf of the government as an institution, on behalf of the people of the Province, to the victims who have been affected. This is a terrible tragedy that goes back to 1985, twelve years. The Minister of Health was not the minister at the time, this government was not the government at the time, but all of that is irrelevant to those who have died, those who are dying, and those who are suffering.

We have said, as the government of the day in 1997, we offer a full apology on behalf of government, and we have said, on behalf of the taxpayers, we will fully participate in a compensation program. The Leader of the Opposition ought to acknowledge those words by the Minister of Health in a generous way, recognizing that there is nothing to be gained, only a small measure of comfort, for those who have suffered if we avoid politics, at least -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - on this issue, and work together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, we, here on this side of the House, have great concerns with the lies and innuendo being propagated by the IFAW in its scam to portray Newfoundlanders as barbarians, and tell bare-faced lies to raise public sympathy against a seal hunt that is being carried out under strict regulations and in as humane a way as possible.

I know the minister and his colleagues share our concerns. However, we cannot allow this vicious attack to continue unchallenged. The minister knows full well that the IFAW anti-sealing campaign is about money, not protecting an endangered species. Would the minister inform the House what his government has done up until now to combat those blatant lies and to expose those anti-sealing con artists?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the first question I would ask is, how long do I have to answer the question? The second point, you should have read The Evening Telegram this morning. You should have been at the Delta Hotel last evening to hear the Premier's response to the IFAW.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we made it quite clear to the telecasters committee, when they approved those ads originally, our displeasure. We pointed out the inaccuracies of the ads that were being run in Canada about the sealing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are also aware of what is being run on the TV ads down in the United States. The more you keep talking and mentioning those things, the more the IFAW comes out.

My position, when it comes to a public debate with the IFAW, is ignore them, because all you are going to do is create a confrontation. They will come out and put more ads on television and do more. We wrote and we expressed the position of government. We have clearly told the Telecaster Communications Committee the position of the Newfoundland sealing industry. We have told the truth about it. The IFAW came out with their second ads and repeated more lies. We went back to them again and they came out again and repeated more lies. We just exposed them for the hypocrites which they really are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the minister but I am not so sure, minister, we can sit back and be complacent over this and just take them for granted. If it works that is wonderful. Minister, while I compliment you on your efforts I am not sure how effective writing letters to the editor of select magazines and one or two speaking engagements will be. The IFAW is stepping up their anti-sealing fund-raising campaign and I believe we have to do something to portray the enormous benefits that this seal hunt provides. Will the minister commit today to use whatever media is needed and where it is needed, to tell the truth about this Newfoundland hunt?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the news media in Newfoundland has any more space to carry it. I am on every evening, The Evening Telegram, the radio and every newscaster. I was on CBC National last evening for about ten minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: How much more? I am going to New Brunswick in January, I am going to Toronto in January, I am going out to Vancouver talking about the IFAW!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Now, if you are insisting that we are going to take $4 million or $5 million of taxpayers money to run adds against IFAW so they can come out with more adds and we will spend another $4 million or $5 million, I would ask the hon. member to give us the money and I will think about doing it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, the sad thing about it, yes you are trying but you are talking to the converted. I think you have to take your message much further than that.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is to the Premier of the Province. Premier, it is common knowledge that the federal Liberals in Ottawa accepted a large financial political donation from this same group, the IFAW, who are now trying to destroy a way of life in this Province. I ask the Premier, if he considers this as an acceptable practise from a party which he is part of and supports?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the member that I would not take five cents from the IFAW and I would not advise anybody else to do it either. I think they are a despicable organization whose only game is to take people who are misinformed and who are vulnerable and naive and to get funds for the purpose of funding the activities of the IFAW which have nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with their own welfare. But I can tell the member, I know a little bit about the seal hunt because when the Liberal Party in Ottawa came to power in 1993, the quota for seals stood at about 55,000 animals and the quota had been there at 55,000 animals under the Conservative government for nine full years and those shocking Liberals moved the quota from 55,000 to 255,000 and restored the seal hunt!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Premier as well. Premier, I have proof here to show that your party in Ottawa accepted a $10,000 donation and it is right from the Parliamentary Library in Canada, whether you want to accept that or not. Mr. Speaker, it is right here and I will table that document today.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier if he, himself, the Premier of this Province, has ever accepted a donation from the IFAW in his own personal political life?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, and I would not advise any member of this House, nor would I advise any party in Canada to accept funds from the IFAW.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Can the minister confirm that on Thursday, November 20, a Liberal fund-raiser was held - basically a cocktail party in Bay Roberts - and $1,000 per person was paid by local business people to meet the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Premier and yourself and, can you confirm that some people in attendance were quite upset when the Premier did not attend?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Accept $1,000 for a dinner, a representative of the poor, the downtrodden in this Province to go out and charge $1,000 for a meal (inaudible).

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

I call the hon. Member for Bonavista South to order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, yes and no. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Yes, secondly, most of the people there said I did not charge them enough; they wanted to pay more because they appreciate the good work that this government is doing for them.

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

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

Can the minister tell this hon. House of Assembly, what was promised to these people to get the ear of the Premier and senior Cabinet ministers? What was promised to them?

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

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Can the minister tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if this is normal in other Liberal districts to charge $1,000 to citizens to meet the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics since 1985. I have no idea what people do in order to succeed in their planning of fund-raising. I am quite capable, and the District Association and the fund-raisers in my district are quite capable of planning fund-raisers and we do not consult with anybody else to ask what they charge at a particular dinner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Again, I remind the members that this is Question Period; it is not a period for debate. Members should not interrupt speakers when they are recognized by the Chair and if members continue to do that then the Chair well have to take further action.

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

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

Let me preamble, Mr. Speaker, by saying that our Party is in favour of industrial development and job creation in harmony with protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, only days ago, the House of Commons debated the federal government's position with respect to emissions in advance of the Kyoto Summit in Japan. The federal Cabinet has still not announced publicly what its position is with respect to emission reduction.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether the provincial government has had any input into the preparation of the federal government's position, and if so, what input has the provincial Minister of Environment and Labour had into their position?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell you that the Ministers of Energy and Environment from across the nation met in Regina about three-and-a-half weeks ago to put in place Canada's position, or at least to have an opportunity for provinces to coordinate their positions with respect to Canada's position, in Kyoto.

The consensus that emerged from that particular conference was that Canada ought to return to the 1990 levels for their emission gases in this country by the year 2010. That gap from 1990 to the year 2010 would equate to about 103 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. We have all accepted that is the consensus position; however, we have not handcuffed the country as they go in. They need to be flexible should they need to go beyond that.

I am very happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland is not only in compliance with 1990 but we are 11 per cent below the 1990 levels right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

With that information in mind, I wonder, has the provincial government determined the impact of these reductions on the proposed Argentia smelter, the Holyrood hydro-generation facility, and any other future emissions that are to be put out because of development in the Province?

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

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have factored that into the equation. We have factored in a number of new developments coming on stream. We believe, and our expert advice tells us, that we will still be well below the 11 per cent target that we currently enjoy, and the position that we currently enjoy at 1990 levels.

I should also tell you that the Premier has met with the Prime Minister just a week or so ago to talk about the Newfoundland context, and I think that he pointed out to the Prime Minister that the last great hydro project left in North America, the Lower Churchill, that 3,200 megawatts of clean, efficient electricity, could add to Canada's reduction as much as 20 per cent. So Newfoundland and Labrador not only contributes by being itself well below the 1990 levels, but we also can make a significant contribution to the country's problem as a whole by bringing that great project on stream and reducing the total output by 20 per cent.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will narrow the focus of my questions to the Avalon Peninsula.

With the hydro facility in Holyrood, the oil refinery at Come By Chance, as well as other sources of emissions on the Avalon Peninsula - the proposed Argentia smelter - we see a need to put in place efforts to control the level of emissions on the Avalon Peninsula.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Labour: Will he put in place legislation to ensure that the smelter in Argentia will be built with the highest possible standard of emission control available on the market today?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the new compliance agreement that we are putting in place with the North Atlantic Refinery at Come By Chance, they plan to reduce their emissions by 14,000 tons as a result of a capital investment of $4.6 million into the emissions; and with the new refinery that is coming into Argentia, the proposed emissions is in the range of between 5,000 and 7,000 tons. So even with Argentia on tomorrow, we are still below 6,000 tons at what we are doing today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is a nice answer, Mr. Speaker, but it did not answer the question.

I ask the minister: Will he put in place for the Argentia smelter, legislation to ensure that the highest possible available technology is used to control the emissions? Furthermore, will the minister put in place legislation to ensure that at regular intervals these facilities upgrade their technology to keep with acceptable levels of emissions at that time?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is already known that the new refinery that is to be built at Argentia will have the latest in technology, in fact, that is in the world right now; and we will make sure that we will do whatever we can, with the new environment act that we are bringing in the spring, to ensure that these people live within that particular sphere of emissions.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

The recent Gosse Gilroy Report on Services for Adults with Developmental Disabilities concluded that the prevocational programs provided at the Vera Perlin Centre do not usually lead to employment. Therefore, they say, the Centre is not working and its approach should be rejected.

Will the minister today distance herself from that recommendation and acknowledge publicly that the Centre provides excellent services for developmentally delayed adults, allowing them to pursue goals and develop life skills in an enjoyable and rewarding social setting - particularly being as how on September 24, 1997, in a news release she said, and I quote: We want to ensure we have effective services in place that meet the needs of all individuals who require supports to live and work in the community?

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

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I will not distance the department or myself from the Goss Gilroy report. That report was initiated by the department to undertake a complete review of all of the employment-related services for people with disabilities in the area. It was completed in consultation with all of the stakeholders. It was received back from the consultants to the department a number of months ago. Upon receipt of the report, we have met with all of the stakeholders involved and, in fact, have put in place a steering committee now to act on implementing the report.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: The authors of the Goss Gilroy report clearly have a strong bias against day programs, a strong bias in favour of job-oriented programs for adults with developmental disabilities. Will the minister admit that some such adults are actually better served and happier in day programs like those offered by the Vera Perlin Centre? Will she reject the notion that all adults must be squeezed into the same mould we use to define success in the mainstream, namely, employability?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the whole thrust of the Goss Gilroy report was to try to look at the whole range and mixture of services that are available to adults with developmental delay in this area, and to try to rationalize and find the best combination of services to suit the needs of these people.

All of the people were consulted; all of the stakeholders involved were consulted in the development of this report. I would have to say that all of the stakeholders involved have been very co-operative in also working together now on implementing the results of this report. The thrust, which is thoroughly agreed on by the Vera Perlin Centre and by all of the other stakeholders, is that we need to support people towards employment, towards maximum development of their abilities. The report provides many recommendations that will help us rationalize our services in this area to accommodate that, and I am very pleased with the progress the group is making.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, the Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance was struck on March 28, 1996, to continue and expand upon the work done by the predecessor committee chaired by the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

The committee has held many meetings and public hearings and has done a great deal of work on the report to date. However, we do not feel that we can met the deadline of November 30 and, at the same time, do justice to the subject matter referred to us.

We therefore ask the hon. House to extend the reporting deadline to March 31, 1998 in order to ensure that the subject is properly dealt with.

The committee also requests that the evidence heard and the information gathered by the Select Committee on No-Fault Insurance of the 42nd General Assembly be referred to the present Select Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table, today, six copies of Order in Council 97-728, which was issued on November 26, 1997 to meet the requirements of Section 26(4) of the Financial Administration Act. This Order in Council authorizes the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to call and award tenders for the construction of highway projects totalling $74.5 million in the 1998-1999 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with Section 32 of the Auditor General's Act, I hereby table the auditor's report and financial information of the office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Chairman of the Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance present a report. I think, in order to give effect to his request, that we shall extend the report deadline to March 31, 1998. It may be necessary to move a motion to accept the report. I ask leave of the House to move that motion now and have it put.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, give leave to put the motion as requested by the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow present the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador agricultural industry comprises 720 farm units with assets whose capital value is in excess of $176 million and with annual cash receipts of more than $71 million and is of critical importance to our Province and to the many people and communities who depend on it; and

WHEREAS moose in this Province whose population is regulated and whose numbers are protected under provincial law and now exceed 200,000 animals, have done damage to many farms in the Province, serious enough to threaten the annual harvest and integrity of these farms; and

WHEREAS the provincial wildlife and inland fisheries industry is estimated to contribute over $200 million annually to the Province's economy and 30,000 moose licenses return approximately 1.5 million a year, to the provincial Treasury; and

WHEREAS it is reasonable and appropriate that farmers be compensated by the Provincial Government for losses they incur as a result of the actions of moose, whose numbers are protected by the Provincial Government;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Provincial Government to consider immediately implementing a program whereby the Provincial Government will compensate farmers for losses they incur as a result of damage done to their farms and crops by moose.

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

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to debate the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS many people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador rely on air travel; and

WHEREAS airline fares are exorbitant and continuing to rise dramatically, driving air travel out of the reach of the ordinary citizen, high travel costs intend to reduce accessibility to secondary and tertiary health care, it creates another financial challenge to post-secondary students and has a direct negative impact to our tourism growth potential;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House recommend that appropriate agencies of the Government of Canada undertake an immediate review of the airline industry with particular focus on large geographic, sparsely populated regions of our country such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and recommend public policy that seeks to reduce the financial burden being placed on our flying public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I give notice that on tomorrow I will ask leave to introduce the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the primary focus of Marine Atlantic's activities today is the provision of the Gulf Ferry Service between Port aux Basques and North Sydney; and

WHEREAS the community of Channel, Port aux Basques, has acted as the gateway to and from the Island of Newfoundland for years; and

WHEREAS the closure of the railway and the shift to containers has had a dramatic effect on the economy of the Port aux Basques area; and

WHEREAS the management of Marine Atlantic is considering the transfer of their headquarters to a location other than Moncton;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly support the request of the town and people of Channel, Port aux Basques, that the headquarters for Marine Atlantic be located in Channel, Port aux Basques; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly object to anything less than the headquarters for Channel, Port aux Basques, given that the management of Marine Atlantic have an aversion to relocating their offices and themselves to rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: I think it is fair game to say that the government of the day on this side is already on record as supporting that Private Member's Resolution. The hon. gentleman -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now on Notice of Motion. Is the hon. member making a notice?

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I ask the hon. gentleman for leave to put the motion right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand the hon. member is asking leave, is that it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the hon. member is asking leave to put a motion. Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we on this side agree that if the government wishes to put that motion today to reinforce the matter which I just raised in the House, we will agree to put the motion when we come to the Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we will gladly put the motion without debate as soon as we get the Orders of the Day.

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

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

I have yet another petition on the housing issue, and the prayer of the petition reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly regarding the rate increase at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation on a sliding scale from 25 per cent to 30 per cent. We are opposed to this increase because of the hardships that may be endured by tenants, and we therefore ask that this decision be reconsidered.

Mr. Speaker, the past couple of times I have stood in my place I have said that the government has already announced that they are going to reconsider this, and I have said that I was happy with that decision and that the tenants eagerly await the outcome of the revision of this decision.

A couple of days ago the minister raised in this House a couple of examples and said that a single parent with two children, making $12,000, should be in housing - a parent who likely works at one of the malls as a counter clerk or whatever. Mr. Speaker, that goes to show right there, just this argument that a single parent making $12,000 would probably be better off on social assistance anyhow.

Mr. Speaker I faxed over to the minister an example, a true example of a family of two parents and three children where they make in excess of $20,000 and for the record, Mr. Speaker, I worked out the calculations to show that this family would actually be better off on social assistance should their rent be increased to 30 per cent of gross income. So there is a need for this and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister and his department will indeed, review as they said they will review, their decision to increase their rent and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that once they review this decision that they will rescind it, at least in certain cases.

I agree that a family making an enormous amount of money taking up a housing unit is probably taking it away from somebody more in need but, Mr. Speaker, a family of two parents with three children making just in excess of $20,000, to have their rent increased from 25 per cent, to 30 per cent is not only unfair and unjust but it is immoral. So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and happy to represent and speak to this petition on behalf of the people who have signed it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I wish to rise for just a second to speak to the petition put forward by my colleague from St. John's South, and although the minister involved is not available at the moment, we want to again make representation on behalf of the people who are in housing provided by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation that the rate of increase is just too much in one move.

Going from 25 per cent to 30 per cent is too much and too fast, so the petitioners are asking that the government and the minister reconsider their proposal to make these increases at this time when there are wage freezes that affect all of them, and when all these people regardless of what their income level might be, if they qualify to live in housing provided by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, it is inappropriate, when all of them are trying to cope with wage freezes and are on fixed incomes to have their rents increased by as much as 5 per cent. We think it is inappropriate and we are asking the government and the minister to be reasonable and be fair and to cancel the proposed rent increases that he has talked about in the last while.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a petition.

MR. CANNING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present this petition to the House of Assembly. I will read the prayer into the record:

WHEREAS, we the undersigned as residents of the electoral District of Labrador West and citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, are extremely concerned for the future for our local, educational standards; and

WHEREAS we feel the current Labrador School Board has proved by the deficit it has incurred that it is unable to efficiently manage the huge geographic area of Labrador. We feel a smaller, more efficient governing structure will be more beneficial to the future of our education system in Labrador West;

THEREFORE the undersigned demand that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador accept our express wish to establish a new school board for the governance of all schools located in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a pretty big issue for the people in Labrador West. There is a strong culture of education that permeates in Labrador West. Labrador West I believe has some of the highest numbers of students who enrol in post-secondary education straight out of high school. There is considerable funding from the mining sector that goes into the school board and the school system in Labrador West; among other things providing benefits to teachers, providing opportunities to the classroom. There is considerable benefit also that is derived from the rental of properties owned by the Labrador School Board in Labrador West.

There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed by the parents who feel they have lost a fair amount of the control they used to have, a fair amount of the input they used to have in the classrooms for their children.

Mr. Speaker, I met with this particular group who brought this petition around. This petition has in excess of 5,000 names. It represents about 81 per cent of the electorate in Labrador West. I met with them and discussed their frustrations and their difficulties. In fact, the minister and I went in and met with them. We went around to each school and met with the Vice Principal and Principal of each school. We met with the President of the NLTA. We met with the Labrador West contingent of the Labrador School Board and the parents' committee that brought these concerns about. In fact, I had even met with the school board to discuss these very issues this spring because I sensed the level of frustration that was being generated in Labrador West.

The minister and I went back to Labrador West after that first initial meeting and met with a working group of the parents' committee to discuss a new model for the governance of schools in Labrador West and to give it a name, it was the Labrador West School Board Authority or the Labrador West Standing Committee that would be constituted of the eight members of the Labrador West School Board along with the - for instance, the student council chair is for each school that would have an inherent role and say into how the decisions will impact their children in their schools.

Subsequent to that meeting I went and met with the entire group, the parents' committee, because if we had moved in the direction of a single school board for Labrador West it would have cost in the order and magnitude of $200,000 to $300,000 without putting one piece of chalk on the ledge of a classroom. At that last meeting that I had met with the parents they agreed unanimously, I am told, to look at this model to develop a protocol agreement to actually put it into the constitution of the Labrador School Board. Mr. Speaker, that is currently what is being done today. There is a great deal of discussion from the highest levels of the Department of Education and the parents' committee to develop this protocol agreement.

I want to express my gratitude, Mr. Speaker, to the parents who formed this organization, to the parents who took it upon themselves to go out and sign up the names in this petition. I want to especially note Becky McLanders and Tom Kent for their leadership and their service to this particular cause. They have done quite an amount of work on behalf of the children in Labrador West. I have worked closely with them. I am very pleased that they continue to work with us to find the best solution possible for our children. That is what it is all about.

I am a parent as well as a politician for Labrador West and we are all very concerned about how the Labrador West schools should be managed through the Labrador School Board. There has to be fundamental change in the current system in governance by the Labrador School Board as it relates to the schools in Labrador West. The idea of backing tractor-trailers into schools and taking lockers off the wall to carry somewhere else is no longer going to happen. We are going to control the system in Labrador West by local parents and those local citizens who wish to respond to the call of serving education but I want to say too that it is very important that we participate with the rest of our friends, neighbours and fellow citizens in the region of Labrador to continue the education standards and raise the education standards in the whole of Labrador to make sure that the children in our region receive the best education possible. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CANNING: I presented this petition today on behalf of the citizens of Labrador West.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand today in response to the petition put forward by the Member for Labrador West. Mr. Speaker, first off I can tell you that I know the people that he mentioned in the petition, Mr. Kent and so on, personally from living in Labrador West for a few years. I certainly understand the concerns that these people have raised with their member here in respect to the school board and how it reflects on education in their district and in that particular area. Of course the first thing you have to do is understand the situation with isolation and the geography of Labrador West to really appreciate what the people in that district are saying.

I have said this and I will say it again to the people for Labrador West and indeed, Mr. Speaker, for anybody in the Province who is watching the educational reform process unfold as it should, we all - when I say, `we all' the majority of the Province on a referendum and on different occasions have showed that they do want education reform. I say this to the Member for Labrador West, that we want education reform, Mr. Speaker, with one simple thing in mind, that it is for the better, not for the worst, not even to maintain the status quo, it is to improve. As long as education reform is for improvements, Mr. Speaker, and for the betterment of the child - and that is what we keep forgetting so often. But if it means a better education for our children in school then we all support it. The day that reform comes off track and things are not happening at the class level, with teachers, with the parents and with the child and so on, that is the day I don't support it.

So for the people of Labrador West, I support them in their endeavours, and I think that they raised some very serious and legitimate concerns. In saying that also, I would like to raise this point today in the House in response to that very particular petition. Of course, that is my own district. I'm in a school district which is called District #5, which covers from Baie Verte to Grand Falls to Burgeo. If I'm not mistaken, it is the biggest geographical district in the Province, and the biggest overall school district in the Province. Believe me, we are seeing some very similar, I say to the Member for Labrador West, concerns being raised by people in my district.

Again I reiterate the point that the reason why all of these members in this House, and why the whole mess we went through - because it was a mess, that is how it can be described - in reform was for the betterment of the child. The day that the child walks into the school and at the end of the day when he comes home we say that he is now, of course, having a better education system than before. That was the whole idea for it, that was the premise, the underpinnings of a changing education system that we went through a lot of pain to achieve.

In a nutshell, I guess I can say to you, a constituent of mine wrapped it up by saying this. He doesn't mind going to get a tooth pulled if he is having a toothache, as long as he knows that after all the pain of getting the tooth pulled he knows he won't have a toothache afterwards. That is how he described it to me. In other words, nobody minds the pain, they don't mind sucking in, they don't mind giving a little bit, they don't mind going through all the emotional strain and trauma that has gone on with this process, as long as at the end of the day we can look at our children when they come home in the evenings and say: Yes, there is a better education system in this Province. Therefore it is the answer to this Province's economic recovery, which is in our children who are in school today. They have a better attitude at the end of the day and they have a better education that they can look to.

I support the Member for Labrador West. Good luck to him, and also to other districts in the Province which have similar concerns. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Waterford Valley, if indeed he wanted leave to put this motion today. Because if it is urgent we could do it today, and the hon. gentleman, we could have a vote, and I understood him to say yes, he wanted to ask leave to put this motion today.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Government House Leader for permitting us to put this motion forward today. I'm wondering if we might be able to make a few comments on the motion prior to doing it. Maybe we could restrict the maximum time and call the vote not later than, say, 3:30 p.m., giving us about twelve or fifteen minutes.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side would give permission for the mover to introduce this resolution, and for somebody on this side - five minutes to introduce the resolution, and five minutes for somebody on this side to debate it, and a couple of minutes for the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Do we have an agreement on the time limits on the debate here?

MR. H. HODDER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Five minutes each.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair would like some direction as to how we should proceed, what rules we are following under this debate. Is it agreed that we have five minutes each?

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition (inaudible) two speakers on this side, maybe about five minutes each, if that is agreeable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: In consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, what I'm putting forward is that we would have two speakers on each side, and it be limited to about five minutes each.

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

MR. TULK: I have to confess to the hon. gentleman that I did not hear - and I would like for people to keep it down a bit - the last part of his statement. I would like to hear the last part of his statement. He wants two speakers and what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: What I had asked for was two speakers and a limit to about five minutes each.

MR. TULK: You introduce it. Let's go.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note that the Opposition House Leader, in his concern to make sure his leader gets a chance to speak, left out the New Democratic Party, but I certainly would agree to that, provided that I also have an opportunity to speak to this motion, as well, for five minutes.

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

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

We, on this side, wanted to put forward this particular resolution because we believe it represents fundamental fairness towards rural Newfoundland. We all know that Marine Atlantic is transferring its activities from Moncton to some other part of Atlantic Canada, and we believe that other part should be somewhere in Newfoundland.

When we look at Newfoundland, we look at two obvious sites. We look at the obvious site being Channel - Port aux Basques and we look at the Argentia area, because these sites are where we have the ferry terminals located. Some people also look at the St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that we have in this House, from time to time, to say to groups like Marine Atlantic that they should be locating where the services are, and in this particular case, we, on this side, are saying that it makes sense. It is an initiative that we would support, or I would support, because this is a private member's resolution being put forward, and that we would support locating the headquarters for Marine Atlantic in Channel - Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: That is what this motion says here and that is what I am supporting. I am saying that we have, in this particular case, to take all the jobs that are now located and being serviced from Moncton and from all these other areas, and make sure they get placed in Channel - Port aux Basques. That is what the motion says. It says the headquarters of Marine Atlantic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to my hon. colleague, the minister across the way, that the motion is very well structured. It says that the headquarters for Marine Atlantic be located in Channel - Port aux Basques.

We are saying, as well, to the government that we have to be proactive, and we have to say to the minister that we believe it makes sense, it is the logical thing to do, and that we will support the initiatives of the government to make sure that when the offices are relocated, they are moved to Channel - Port aux Basques. We are saying that anything that is now in Moncton should be located to Channel - Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Opposition House Leader for putting this motion forward, and for having such foresight as an Opposition to piggyback themselves into this issue, to help us with the cause, and to support us also with the concept that I have put forward from the beginning, which is that we cannot afford to have a remote headquarters for Marine Atlantic.

As I have said from the beginning - and to use the example of the Hope Brook gold mine - the Hope Brook gold mine was established; it had a headquarters in Corner Brook at the time, and that was the way the B.P. SELCO Company used to run the Hope Brook gold mine. Well, if we look at this, when Royal Oak Mines took over the operation of the Hope Brook gold mine and changed the name to Royal Oak Mines, they decided that they could not afford, with private sector funds, to put the headquarters anywhere other than on the mine site. Therefore, with Marine Atlantic, we feel that public sector funds should not be used to support a remote location for Marine Atlantic headquarters; that includes St. John's. We know they have certain functions that will have to be performed in St. John's, but the majority of functions should be performed nowhere but in Port aux Basques, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Well, the fact of the matter is, looking at this motion and seeing it firmly, I really want to thank the hon. member for agreeing to the transfer of jobs from, I would think, his district or close to his district, to the community of Port aux Basques in the district of Burgeo and LaPoile. It is but a gift from the hon. member to be so magnanimous to offer forth the jobs. It is really nice to see it going to this extent, Mr. Speaker. As it says in the motion, "Whereas the management of Marine Atlantic is considering the transfer of their headquarters to a location other than Moncton." Well, that location, Mr. Speaker, I would hope will be Port aux Basques. I want all hon. members to realize the people of the Southwest Coast thank the hon. House for its support in this initiative. Other places in the Province need some of this work, but really, the best and the only place to put it is in Channel - Port aux Basques. I maintained that position all along and thank the Opposition for getting involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome this motion, because it is a motion that focuses on the role that Marine Atlantic has played in the Province of Newfoundland, or more often than not, not played. I know, for many, many years the employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard have always had charged to any bid that they put on the ship, a proportion of the headquarters operations overhead in Moncton. Though when they bid on a ship, included in the cost of the bid was the cost of having all these offices and management staff, personnel, public relations and government relations up in Moncton as part of the cost of fixing the ship in St. John's Harbour. Mr. Speaker, now that the Federal Government has gutted Marine Atlantic and gotten out of the services they provide and this operation is being moved - and I do not support any of this gutting, Mr. Speaker - I did not support it with the Newfoundland Dockyard. I wish there were the same unanimity in this House about the Newfoundland Dockyard as there is about this motion. I must say, it is very magnanimous for the member. I know it is difficult for him to support a resolution that would see the movement of managerial people from his district to Port aux Basques.

MR. J. BYRNE: What a man!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: And if that is not the intent of the motion, perhaps we should amend it to make sure that headquarters includes all the management personnel. We do not want Marine Atlantic to have a phoney headquarters in Port aux Basques and have the President hanging around Mount Pearl!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: If there is going to be a headquarters office in Port aux Basques, let the management personnel be stationed in Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should amend the first resolve after the word "headquarters" to add "and all management personnel of" instead of the word "for". After the word "headquarters" in the first resolve, add, instead of the word "for" the words, "and all management personnel of" Marine Atlantic.

I would not want, Mr. Speaker, to see some half-hearted effort - and we know how fancy they are. We know what they did to Via Rail; we know what they did to the railways. We know how they can shut things down and fool the people of Newfoundland and Canada. We know how they can pretend to be doing one thing and really doing something else. So if we are going to be serious about this, if we really want them to be serious, and ensure that the operations of Marine Atlantic, that the ferry service on the Gulf and to Argentia is run from rural Newfoundland, we have to ensure that they actually do it. I would want to have that amendment there. I do not know if there is a seconder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Seconded by the member for... If we are going to do this, it should not be some sort of motion here that someone can weasel out of after the motion is passed. I think we recognize that government offices, particularly offices of this nature, are very important to a community. It is also very important, Mr. Speaker, that the people using that service have access to the management. If there is a problem with the Gulf service, if someone gets off the ferry in Port aux Basques and has a complaint to make, he should be able to go to the top, and not have to wait to go somewhere else to deal with the management and operations of Marine Atlantic.

I support that motion, with that amendment, just for greater certainty. I support the motion and thank the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who seconded the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please! Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, I would ask the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, has there been a copy of the amendment presented to the Table?

MR. HARRIS: I will have that presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair would ask hon. members to vote on the amendment, I would like for it to be presented to the Chair through the Table.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the public record show that today we have had an interesting development in the House. It is one that I think is encouraging, and one that I applaud. Both the Member for Waterford Valley, who is an urban member in this House, and the Leader of the NDP, who is also an urban member in the House, both from the St. John's and Mount Pearl area, have proposed, as a measure of spreading the opportunity for employment around the Province, that jobs be moved from St. John's and Mount Pearl out to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know there are some in the riding of the Member for Waterford Valley who would question what the member is doing. I say to those who would question him, they should see rather his greater vision for the whole of the Province. I know there are some who would question the approach of the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, who has also proposed that every last management position from Marine Atlantic be located to Port aux Basques, and would question him as well. I know the member, and I applaud his much broader vision as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what an extraordinary and fortuitous day for Newfoundland and Labrador, when the government is being urged to move jobs out of Confederation Building, out of St. John's, out of Mount Pearl, and into rural Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is fortuitous indeed, and timely, as just Monday of this week I, and the most articulate and the most eloquent and the most passionate and the most persuasive Member for Burgeo & LaPoile met the Port aux Basques mayor and town council on this very subject.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Monday past -

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear on what the resolution has said. I have heard the amendment as proposed by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, and I will deal with that when it is tabled before me and I have a look at it. It is my understanding that the resolution put forward by the Member for Waterford Valley is clear. It says clearly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Kilbride will not skate - I am listening to (inaudible).

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

The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: On this resolution, the Member for Kilbride's voice will be heard; I do not need to skate around this, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

But the resolution clearly calls for that the jobs that are being presently considered to be moved from Moncton, but it seems to me: Be It Further Resolved -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to read it for you?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I can read it for you if you like, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, but I just want to be clear. We will have a chance to vote on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance to vote on the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi's amendment and what the Premier has indicated is certainly not the case in this resolution.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted - and I must say, the fundamental difference between the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and the members of the Conservative Party, it appears, is that when the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi stands and says it is in the interest of the Province to see jobs elsewhere than in the City of St. John's, he stands by his word.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not even dry on the paper and already Members of the Progressive Conservative Party are standing up and saying that when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, wink, wink, nod, nod, they were only kidding.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

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

Just because the Premier says it is so, Mr. Speaker, does not actually make it so.

I want to contend that what the Premier has said here today on this issue is not correct. If the Premier would keep his powder dry just for a minute, put his rhetoric in his back pocket, we will wait and see the amendment and he will see how members on this side of the House vote. Otherwise, he should confine himself to the facts of the matter and not to what his delusionary comments are what he believes them to be, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member has taken advantage of the opportunity to call a point of order to further engage in debate.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have been thrice interrupted in my attempt to seize upon this historic moment when members on the other side are compelling the government to take this opportunity, to put into practice this principle of moving the abundance, they say, of jobs in the cities of St. John's and Mount Pearl out to solve the unemployment problems of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the member's resolution. The member, I know, is the most informed member, has a great knowledge of Port aux Basques, great understanding of the Marine Atlantic service, and the member knows that the Marine Atlantic service between PEI and New Brunswick is no more. There is now a big bridge - go on a holiday, take a look. There is no more Marine service. Those jobs are gone, but the service between Digby and St. John is no more, that service is gone. The service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, Mr. Speaker, is gone. That service is gone. That leaves Marine Atlantic primarily as a business that services the traffic between North Sydney and Newfoundland, it is a Newfoundland and Labrador-based service and if you say you want the jobs and headquarters in Port aux Basques, that means all the jobs and the headquarters in Port aux Basques, including the jobs that are in the city of St. John's and in the member's own riding.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members opposite, that is precisely what the government means. That is what we said to the Town Council of Port aux Basques on Monday, that is why four members of this government, four ministers who went to the Federation of Municipalities - five, said, when asked would we support Port aux Basques? The answer was four-square and we supported the resolution of the Federation of Municipalities.

I say to the Member for Waterford Valley and I say to the Member in particular for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, who I think has been absolutely straight on this one - but I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, we take his resolution, we look forward to any other clarifications that his party can offer, and we have already communicated to Marine Atlantic and to the Federal Government that we want to see the largest presence possible. They can move half the federal Department of Transport down to Port aux Basques. In fact, leave one. We have gone further, we have said that we are going to try to move jobs out of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to Port aux Basques, in particular, our own Marine Reservation Service. We are committed to rebuilding the economy of Port aux Basques, and I say to the members opposite, I hope you stay for the vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and I hope all members on the government side are here for the vote, too, I would say.

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite clear -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It has been quite clear for some time that I have been raising those concerns. Back in June of this year, I met with officials from Marine Atlantic. Later on in the summer, Mr. Speaker, I met with the CEO, Rod Morrison of Marine Atlantic, the President of Marine Atlantic. I met on two occasions with them. I have done a news release to that effect. I met with the committee in Port aux Basques.

The Premier mentioned, just on Monday of this week, after months and months and months I have been calling for, number one - and the reason why - and the government, in fact, have been causing major problems here in this transfer. I will outline them briefly.

The ferry service that was running - Marine Atlantic service - from Yarmouth to Bar Harbor, from Digby to Saint John, New Brunswick and from Borden to Cape Tormentine, those three basic services were under Marine Atlantic with a large headquarters in Moncton.

I said in no uncertain terms to members of Marine Atlantic, in a meeting in June and with Rod Morrison later in the summer - the day the Matthew actually arrived in Port aux Basques, I was there - and I indicated that it is not acceptable that they put four people in Port aux Basques at a time, in reservations. They have nine in North Sydney and the committee felt it should be more of a balance. And I said, no, it is not good enough. I said, it is not good enough until every reservation agent and people in Port aux Basques are in Port aux Basques and not in North Sydney. I said: because when a 1-800 number calls goes for a booking at Marine Atlantic, if the line is busy the call gets forwarded to North Sydney. If you have nine lines in North Sydney and four in Port aux Basques, the people in Port aux Basques are getting all the work, they are showing all the calls they are getting in Port aux Basques because they are call-forwarded to North Sydney. In other words, the numbers do not reflect the origin of calls and a commitment to it. I said it is wrong. Every single job in Moncton, every job in North Sydney in reservations should be in Port aux Basques. And I said, every job in North Sydney that is not -

MR. TULK: What about the ones for St. John's?

MR. SULLIVAN: I have indicated it. You should be listening and I will not repeat it. I will get to that in a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, it is a serious resolution. We do not want to misunderstand the Leader of the Opposition, so I ask him, where should the jobs in St. John's go?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking to something - it is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have been fighting this cause for several months and I am not going to be bullied by the Premier into answering any particular questions. I will answer every question. I have told the people in Port aux Basques, I have said in news releases, Premier, and you should read them, where I stand on this issue, and if you do not read it and keep up to date on what is happening, I am not even going to give you the opportunity of hearing me repeat again what I said before - to waste time here in the House on silly points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is implying that he sends me press releases and that I do not read his press releases when I receive them. I am always pleased to read his press releases, but I have him in the flesh and blood right across from me. Where does he stand on the jobs from Marine Atlantic in St. John's? Should they move to Port aux Basques or not, yes or no? He should answer the question. You are going to send this Hansard down to Port aux Basques, and they want an answer, too.

MR. TULK: We are going to get it when you vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition standing to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

AN HON. MEMBER: No point of order, as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier is engaging further in debate. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I stand in this House on several occasions and I start giving exactly where I am on every issue, to be interrupted by the Premier of this Province with utter nonsense here - I do not intend to continue with that nonsense anymore and I conclude debate on this resolution!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

We are voting on the amendment to the resolution. For the benefit of all hon. members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

For the benefit of all hon. members, I will read the amendment. The amendment by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi:

That the word "for" after the word headquarters in the first resolve be deleted and replaced by the words "and all management personnel of."

Does everybody understand the amendment?

All in favour of the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

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

MR. TULK: I wonder if the hon. gentleman is ready to have the motion put on the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, is he ready?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You are not ready?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh well, if you are not ready we will have to wait, that is all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Opposition House Leader is now ready for the vote.

MR. SPEAKER: All members in favour of the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mr. Flight, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Lush, Mr. Oldford, the hon. the Minister of Health, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Ms M. Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. G. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Ms Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All against the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. T. Osborne, Ms S. Osborne.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-seven `ayes', two `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House now ready to vote on the resolution?

All in favour of the resolution, as amended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All against the resolution as amended? Nay.

Carried.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, by leave. Before we do Division - we are going to call for Division but we should let the member in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. TULK: We should inform him that the Bar is now down.

MR. SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the hon. member to enter the House to vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All in favour of the resolution as amended?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the vote again by standing vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Mr. Flight; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Lush; Mr. Oldford; the hon. the Minister of Health; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Ms Hodder; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Mr. Harris; Ms Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All against the resolution?

CLERK: Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Osborne.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution carried.

Order, please!

The Orders of the hon. House state that no hon. member is permitted to be inside the Legislature and not vote. We have the hon. Member for Virginia Waters not recorded as having voted either for or against, so I will ask the hon. Member for Virginia Waters whether he wishes to vote for or against the resolution.

MR. NOEL: For, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, thirty-nine yeas and (inaudible) nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to, on behalf of the government, once again thank the Member for Waterford Valley for putting forward such a succinct resolution today and in seeing that it got quick passage.

Mr. Speaker, I would move Motion No. 2, first reading of Bill No. 42.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act," carried. (Bill No. 42)

On motion, Bill No. 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3, first reading of Bill No. 43.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Health Act," carried. (Bill No. 43)

On motion, Bill No. 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2, Committee of Supply on Bill 33.

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

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I adjourned debate on this matter the other day.

It is a matter that was raised today in a ministerial statement. I know the government has been using ministerial statements as a substitute for debate these last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: My colleague the Member for Baie Verte says it is to divert questions. All the same, we did have a very interesting question period today. I'm sorry the Member for Virginia Waters wasn't here today because I was hoping someone was going to ask him whether he charges the same amount for his meetings with his constituents as the Member for Port de Grave does. His unity meetings.

I thought it was kind of interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear that the Member for Port de Grave, when he has meetings with his constituents, he charges them $1,000 to attend. I'm rather surprised he would do that, but there you have it. The truth was out. He did answer, at least honestly, the first two questions when he said yes, he did have that meeting, and yes, he did charge them $1,000 to come. He said no, they weren't disappointed when the Premier didn't show up. Perhaps the Premier had enough shame to stay away, I don't know. Perhaps the Premier had enough shame to stay away from the Member for Port De Grave's meeting with his constituents because he charged them $1,000 a head to attend.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: I do not believe we have a quorum in the Chamber at the moment. Would you assure that there is a quorum?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the Clerk to count the -

MR. TULK: There is a Quorum present.

CHAIR: Okay we have a Quorum present.

Order, please!

Before we resume the debate, being Thursday, I have to announce the questions for the Late Show. The first question: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal re: my question on provincial manufacturers, by the Member for St. John's South.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Government Services and Lands re: my question on site septic disposal and water supply, by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture re: my question combatting IFAW, by the Member for Bonavista South.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the Opposition House Leader for providing me with an audience because I have some very important things to say. I am glad the Premier has come back as well because I want to talk about some important matters concerning the development of Labrador and concerning the aboriginal people of this Province.

We have a great interest all of a sudden in ensuring that development occurred in Labrador and I appreciate that this has been a long time coming, but it is not well known that for many, many years the aboriginal people of Labrador have been trying to get the government of Newfoundland to sit down and talk with them about native land claims, to start that process going and to engage them, along with the government of Canada, in this process.

For a number of years, the government of Newfoundland, not this government, the previous government, refused to talk to them, would not talk to the Innu. They did not want to talk to the Innu. They were punishing them for taking some electrical metres out of their houses. Refused to talk to them. Had major consultations on matters to do with Labrador, refused to talk to the Innu. The previous Government House Leader; the Minister of Justice, got to Labrador, talked to everybody - consolidation with all the alleged stakeholders in the issue of low level flying, only one group they would not talk to, the Inuit. Would not talk to them, would not discuss it with them because they were breaking the law by taking electrical metres out of the houses. That was the attitude that the previous government had towards the aboriginal people of Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, we want to see development of Labrador. We want to see, I am sure all hon. members want to see and all Newfoundlanders want to see, development in Labrador. I know the Member for Lake Melville, the Minister of Government Services and Lands is very sincere when he speaks about that issue, as is the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and certainly the Member for Torngat Mountains, as well as the Member for Labrador West.

Everybody is interested in seeing this road and the development in Labrador except for one thing, Mr. Chairman, we have a very serious issue that has to be dealt with first, and what we have to ensure is that development does not take place while riding roughshod over the rights of the aboriginal people of Labrador. That is what we have to ensure, Mr. Chairman, and it is all very well for the Premier and the government to start talking about fast-tracking negotiations on native land claims to ensure that Voisey's Bay can proceed on Inco's schedule but, Mr. Chairman, five years ago there was no Voisey's Bay discovery; four years ago there was no Voisey's Bay discovery; three years ago, there was no Voisey's Bay discovery and there was no negotiation with the Innu either, Mr. Chairman, no negotiation with the Innu.

But now, Mr. Chairman, we are in a situation where there has been a discovery and being starved for employment in this Province as we are, all of a sudden there is a fast track on negotiations with the Innu and the Inuit, not yet recognized the existence even of the Metis people in Labrador, not prepared to recognize their existence and yet, Mr. Chairman, what I fear most of all about the proceedings in the development of Labrador, in particular Voisey's Bay, is that this government if it is not very, very, very careful is going to be creating a racist backlash in this Province, and I say that seriously, Mr. Chairman. If this government is not careful and make sure that it does not continue with its present approach, which appears to be to try to set some stampede on the go to force the native people, the aboriginal people of Labrador to enter into an agreement on a fast track when the Government of Newfoundland has ignored them, in effect for nearly fifty years; that if they cannot reach agreement at their pace, on their terms, there will be fermented in this Province a racist backlash against the aboriginal people of Labrador, fermented by the actions of this government and I say this very seriously, Mr. Chairman, I do not say it lightly.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very, very, very careful about these issues. We, in this Province, do not have a very good record in the long run or in the short run when it deals with issues regarding aboriginal people. I only need to mention the name of the Beothuks to remind people of the long-term history but in the short-term, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of serious problems that have yet to be faced and recognized by the government of this Province and, Mr. Chairman, when you see the Canadian Human Rights Commission being approached by the Innu of Labrador in 1991, the Canadian Human Rights Commission asked to look into the fact that the Government of Canada failed for fifty years nearly, since Confederation, to recognize the constitutional obligations to the Innu of Labrador by the Government of Canada, and having a report prepared by the dean of law of the University of Ontario, making a finding to that effect, making a finding that the Government of Canada with the complicity of the Province of Newfoundland, failed to ensure that the Innu of Labrador receive the same rights and services as aboriginals across the country.

When we see as recently as October of this year, another report prepared for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, this time by Professor Noel Lyon, a retired law professor of Queen's University law school, who drew the same conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Micmac of the Province of Newfoundland. He concluded that ten of the eleven Micmac communities in Newfoundland have been ignored by the Government of Canada. Once again, with the complicity of the Province of Newfoundland. They had their rights to access to services, their rights to access to their own recognition as human communities. Fundamental human rights have been ignored. Their rights to self determination to engage in a process of self government as communities have been ignored since the time of Confederation. When we see that going on today, Mr. Chairman, we see a government that is responding, in the case of native land claims in Labrador, not to the need for justice for aboriginal people but to the need of a development schedule for an international mining company, Inco.

So these issues have to be resolved, Mr. Chairman, they have to be resolved fairly. They have to be resolved as quickly as can be accommodated, Mr. Chairman, but we must not create an atmosphere in this Province that says that their rights take second place to the scheduling of Inco or the scheduling of this government for the development of Labrador. So I place that caution before the committee while supporting the putting aside of this money for the Labrador road, in a separate fund outside the consolidated revenue fund, where hopefully - as the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair indicated today - it will also, in addition to being safeguarded for the purpose for which it has been earmarked and obtained in part from the Government of Canada, that it may also have revenue itself, some interest or interest income from that fund in a manner consistent with other separated funds held by the Province of Newfoundland, such as pension funds, et cetera.

So I want to see that, Mr. Chairman, it is an unusual - as the minister indicated today - it is quite an unusual step to segregate funds in a particular place for something as important as the transportation development of Labrador. I support that wholeheartedly but I will caution the government and caution all hon. members about the concern that I expressed of ensuring that we, as politicians, move very carefully in ensuring that we do not encourage the people of this Province in any form of backlash against native people, backlash against the Aboriginal people, the Innu, the Inuit or the Metis who are entitled to have their rights addressed and addressed properly.

They have been ignored, Mr. Chairman, for many, many years and I don't think it can be denied after the reports that have been prepared by the Canadian Human Rights Commission by Professor Lyon and Professor McAdam or Dean McAdam, or by other studies that have been done that have shown that the native people of this Province were treated differently from the time of Confederation than native people, Aboriginals, first nations, groups across the country. Mr. Chairman, much of this is in the history books. Much of this is past. Much of it cannot be revisited and corrected.

Mr. Chairman, we are the legislators of the present. This is the government of the day. We are the people and this is the government to whom the people look to for leadership in the area of development, which is very important but also, in terms of leadership, in regard to the fundamental human rights of the aboriginal people who resided in Newfoundland and Labrador long before European settlement, Mr. Chairman, and long before our laws, our culture, our customs, and our power were imposed on them.

I say that seriously, not to do anything more than to put that warning on the record, in place. Because I think hon. members here, and people in this Province, have a tendency to regard the rights of Aboriginals as obstacles in the way of economic development, rather than as obligations that we as fellow human beings have to the aboriginal peoples of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I support the motion. I said the other day I would very much like to see motions of this sort, or any motions from this House, be broadcast fully to the people of this Province. The Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair recently came back from the Yukon on an important mission, and brought back the news that in the Yukon the proceedings of the Yukon Assembly are broadcast live throughout the Yukon.

As I said the other day, why shouldn't the Member for Lake Melville, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, why should he not be able to speak directly to the people of his district when he speaks here in this House? Not through the media, if he happens to get reported or not, not having to get copies of Hansard and mimeograph them or Xerox them and send them out by mail to each of his constituents, but that directly they be able to observe the member speak, and have him speak to them in Labrador when he speaks in this House, and every member of this House. So that not just those who happen to say something dramatic enough to get the ear of the media, but that all members have equal opportunity when they speak in the House to be seen by their constituents, to be seen by the public of Newfoundland. So what they say is known, and what they don't say is known as well.

When members speak, whether it be in debate, whether it be in Question Period, whether it be in the Late Show we are having today at 4:30 p.m. - what is the point of the Late Show if everybody is gone away, if everybody is gone home? Are we just here flapping our gums for our own amusement? Or if we are debating serious matters, and I think the people of this Province have serious matters that they want debated in this House of Assembly, then they should in fact have that debate take place in their homes, and see what is going on, see what efforts are being made in this House of Assembly to improve the condition of the people of this Province, and see in fact what measures aren't being taken.

We have an example. We have $350 million being discussed here for transportation in Labrador. I know it is a very expensive procedure to build a road through Labrador, to provide for the transportation we would need to the people of Labrador. I think that the enormity of that number can be put in perspective when one sees that the Government of Newfoundland recently allocated a mere $125,000 to help feed the hungry children of this Province in the school lunch program. When asked about the cost of broadcasting the House of Assembly, the Government House Leader said: We could broadcast the House of Assembly or we could feed the hungry children. I will place them first.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You said something, though. Words to that effect. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

MR. TULK: I said (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If it comes to that. We are talking about $350 million here now, so let's not equate one measure about broadcasting the House in the interest of the democracy and compare that to feeding hungry children, when the next day we come into the House and see the allocation of $350 million for road transportation in Labrador. Let's get some perspective on this, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Government House Leader will reconsider and instruct the Cabinet to go along with a provision to broadcast this House so that all hon. members can be heard by their constituents, including the members for Labrador, who, as I said before, are all good members. They are better than the previous members for Labrador, all of them. The only thing wrong is that they are not New Democrats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, we are new.

MR. HARRIS: They are new, but they are not New Democrats.

Mr. Chairman, with those remarks, I will end my remarks on that debate and say that I support the motion now before the Committee and commend to hon. members.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I just want to stand for a few minutes on this motion for the funding for Labrador initiatives. I thought I would add a few comments to those of my colleague, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, and make a few points here today, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I make reference to the points today that the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair made in respect to Labrador and how the Labrador people feel.

Since these announcements have been made, and so on, it certainly has been a positive thing for people who live in Labrador, from Labrador West right out to the Northern parts of Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I know it firsthand because I have lived in Labrador West for six years and I got to know the people of Labrador West very well, from living there, but also from visiting the Labrador Coast: L'Anse au Clair, L'Anse au Loup and so on. I got to know these people and how they feel about these particular issues and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, they are sensitive. These people are very sensitive to these issues and when they hear any government of any day talk about the initiatives that are going to take place in Labrador, they are hesitant and also sometimes cautiously optimistic, I guess is the best way to put it - cautiously optimistic when they hear any government of any day talking about initiatives.

These people in Labrador are cautiously optimistic, I say to the Government House Leader, when they hear initiatives put forward for Labrador, because simply put, we have seen it before from previous governments, all different stripes and so on.

Labrador has been a place forgotten a lot of times by many administrations. They have been cautiously optimistic for a long time when they hear announcements from any government because they know what is said and what is announced and so on, does not always come true in the end. At the end of the day they wonder if they will see the paved highway connecting up Labrador and I am all for that. Labrador has been left out for a long time.

With the amount of taxes that come from throughout Labrador, and knowing Labrador West very well, Mr. Chairman, employed down there for some six years, I do know that a lot of people in Labrador West especially, feel that they contributed, that they have put their fair share into the economy of this Province over the years and they deserve a fair share. They never look for, by the way, Mr. Chairman, the double lane highways or anything, they wanted a decent highway that would connect the vast land of Labrador that has so much potential.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, what we see is Voisey's Bay come on stream and big projects like this, so all of a sudden the government is jumping around to make sure that they please everybody in this whole process and they say, okay, Labrador, now we remember you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the first thing we have to remember with respect to the Innu and Inuit in Labrador, they are saying the same thing. What was the announcement about the other day? It was a peculiar announcement, in my books. What we have is an announcement about nothing, really, because it was an announcement in principle on an agreement that may be with the Inuit - the Inuit were not present at the press conference but the Innu were there, Mr. Chairman, and the Métis were not even discussed. So, Mr. Chairman, the announcement the other day sounded nice -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that it has been ruled in this hon. House on many occasions that it is unparliamentary for hon. members to seat themselves in such a way that their backs are to the Chair.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the Chairman, they should have the decency to face the Chairman, especially when such important debate is going on, that they pay strict attention to it. Because I have a lot of important things to say about Labrador on these issues.

Mr. Chairman, the Inuit announcement or press conference, whatever you want to call it, a few days ago, was nothing less than strange, Mr. Chairman, a big announcement about nothing, and then we find out that the Innu show up at the press conference, who were not even involved in the discussions, and then, the Métis were not even mentioned. So, Mr. Chairman, there is good reason why people in Labrador have this query every time they hear an announcement about Labrador and the great highway that will go through and so on, or anything about Labrador.

Labrador people, Mr. Chairman - and I tell you, I speak, knowing people in Labrador very well, they are very - and the word I used earlier was, cautiously optimistic. They are hopeful that it is going to come through but, Mr. Chairman, until they see that black-top up there and drive across it, they are not going to believe it.

So the warning is to the government of the day. It is the old story of the boy who cried wolf. Too often, Mr. Chairman, Labrador people heard that but at the end of the day what happens? There is no (inaudible) and for days and days and years and years, it goes on and on.

The warning to the government, Mr. Chairman, is, this time is your last chance. That is what I have heard from people in Labrador West to whom I was talking, people on the coast and so on. The great land of Labrador is saying: For too many years we have given our share of resources and our people. Now they are saying: we want it delivered and it has to be delivered in full, not rhetoric, not smoke and mirrors, not that which at the end of the day will pan out to be nothing - not a thing with the highway and the expenditures for the Labrador highway.

I say this today - I have put it on record before and I will say it again: if this government does not follow through and complete, finish, complete, terminate, conclude this whole deal with the Trans-Labrador Highway, they will be out as fast as they can say Labrador. Because the warning is there and the warning must be heeded, from the residents including the native groups of Labrador who are saying: This is your last shot, you had better put something on the table where we will see concrete evidence that you will follow through. And this time, as we see Voisey's Bay develop over the next months and maybe, even in a couple of years - it seems that there will be some kind of a delay there - do not be fooled for one minute. As time flies - yes, time heals a lot of things; it may heal it but it is not forgotten.

The people of Labrador are still not happy with the final decisions on the smelter for Voisey's Bay. If you think they are, you are kidding yourself. It was only just a couple of weeks ago I spoke to a couple of friends of mine from Labrador West, who still feel that in the pit of their stomachs; they still feel when they look at Churchill Falls, they look at Voisey's Bay - and you look at the small number of people in such a vast land with so much resources -they still feel, in their gut, that Labrador has gotten the short end of the stick every time. But this time, Mr. Chairman, they are saying it is the last straw. So this time, I say to the government, you had better follow through because it is your last chance.

I will adjourn the debate now, and come back to this later as we go on to the Late Show.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

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

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

It being 4:30 p.m., we now move to the adjournment debate.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I presented questions to the House and basically in recent conversations with members of the Food Processors Association of Newfoundland, they have informed me that they find it very difficult to gain access to hospitals and local institutions, such as schools, government buildings and so on.

MR. FITZGERALD: Why is that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: `Roger', I can tell you exactly why that is. It is because large national firms, once receiving government tenders, then subcontract for the supply of the goods that are received within government institutions. If a local suppler cannot supply to every outlet across the country, that that company has, then they are not even considered for our institutions here provincially. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Local companies, as I mentioned yesterday, get more support from companies like Dominion and Sobeys than they do from our own Provincial Government. Dominion and Sobeys carry these products, not only in the Newfoundland locations, Mr. Speaker, but also in locations throughout Atlantic Canada and even into Ontario. They carry locally manufactured and produced products yet our own Provincial Government will not even allow our provincial products, such as Sunnyland Juice, to be sold in our cafeteria, not just supplied by the caterer that is providing food in our cafeteria but sold in the cafeteria. Something is wrong when a national catering company that wins a Newfoundland Government contract, Mr. Speaker, subcontracts to national firms as opposed to provincial firms, the national suppliers and producers as opposed to products that are manufactured right here. Why is it that local manufacturers, Mr. Speaker, like Sunnyland Juice, are considered of high enough quality by Sobeys stores that they are willing to put their own brand label on it, `Our Best', and yet the Provincial Government here does not have enough confidence in the locally manufactured products to ensure that contractors that win government tenders have to give preference to these local companies.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the government consider putting in place, in our procurement packages as they come up for renewal, specifications that will guarantee local manufacturers and producers the ability to competitively bid on the supply of their products within the government institutions. I am asking that government, within the government tendering packages, put in place clauses that will ensure that subcontractors supplying the Newfoundland Government, supplying schools and supplying hospitals are obliged to give first consideration to local producers.

Mr. Speaker, within the Atlantic Procurement Agreement, Newfoundland has a 5 per cent advantage. The only province in Atlantic Canada that has this 5 per cent advantage. As far as the Local Producers Association of Newfoundland are concerned, the Newfoundland Government are not even utilizing this to the best advantage of local manufacturers and producers. That agreement was only signed recently. Prior to that, they had a 10 per cent advantage. Mr. Speaker, I see absolutely no reason why, when the government here puts out for tender a place like our cafeteria, or to provide food for one of the senior's homes or for a hospital, that government cannot put in there a clause that will ensure that whoever wins that contract has to give preference to local manufacturers, local producers, allowing them the 5 per cent leeway.

Because once a national company gets the contract - Cater Plan is an example in our cafeteria - once they get that contract then that 5 per cent preference policy no longer applies because it is not a government tender. It is then a private tender. This 5 per cent, it should be made mandatory that whoever wins the contract that part and parcel of this contract, the tender, be that local manufacturers and producers be given the same advantage that they are if the contract was tendered initially by government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that government consider putting in place recommendations and clauses within our tendering packages that will help and support and protect local manufacturers and producers.

Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question is not one with which I'm unfamiliar, because I happen to have met with probably the same group that the hon. Member for St. John's South met with a couple of years ago on this specific issue of getting their products into our hospitals and schools. People such as the Newfoundland Tea Company, Blue Buoy Foods, the Everfresh orange juice people, and a number of them that came to see me, as being in Health, wanting to know what could be done. I understand their concerns.

There is of course an acknowledgement that there is a bigger picture involved in this discussion than simply saying every dollar that the government puts into an institution must be spent, if they can, on products that are made in Newfoundland. Because to start with, we do operate under a fair and equitable public tendering system. The basic question is this: Do the manufacturers in Newfoundland have reasonable access to get their product in? The answer to that question has to be yes. They have to meet the same three basic criteria that everybody has to meet, of course, in a commercial sense. They have to be able to provide the product with the quality that is appropriate, they have to be able to meet the price levels that the market will allow them to meet, and they also have to be able to give the service the people they are selling to demand. In other words, they have to have consistency of supply; they have to be able to provide the ancillary things that go with these products, such as coolers and that sort of thing, to be able to get the job done.

The 5 per cent preference policy the member refers to works very well. It is still in place at the moment. The member also has to understand that we have to take fundamental positions as a province with respect to how we are going to go about and try to do business within the Province and outside the Province. We can go in one of two directions. We can't go in both directions at the same time. We can't be insular looking and protective of our own turf while at the same time we are asking other provinces and other parts of Canada to give us fair, on a competitive basis, access to their marketplaces.

While there may be a few products that appear to be disadvantaged by way of not being able to get their products in, you have to recognize that there are 10,000 products manufactured in Newfoundland that we have to depend on selling to marketplaces in the rest of the country and in the rest of the world.

So if we are going to say; No orange juice that is manufactured outside of Newfoundland can come in, then we have to be prepared to bear the consequences of the other provinces saying: No boots made in Newfoundland can come into my province, no fish that is further processed can come into my province, no gloves that are made in this Province can go into another province. I don't think you agree with that, because if you are saying you agree with that what you are saying is this: That we will produce what we can sell to ourselves, and that is the basis of our economic activity in a manufacturing sense.

We have to have a bigger picture than just one or two singular industries, as important as they are to us. We have signed on to the interprovincial trade agreements in the country. We have special arrangements in certain instances regarding procurement with the Atlantic Provinces, and we are going to respect those agreements. I would say quite clearly, and I believe the hon. members on the other side would agree, that in the big picture we are exporting way, way more in terms of dollar value than we are importing into the Province. I mean the population base would tell you that if nothing else would. There are only 500,000 people in the Province. We can only consume so much stuff in this Province and so if everything we consume was made in Newfoundland, it would only be the equivalent of what 500,000 people can consume, but what we ship out of this Province, in terms of exports, would sustain a population base much, much greater than 500,000 people. So, on balance, we are doing the right thing and pursuing the right policies as with respect to local preferences and sort of thing.

I would also say one other thing to the hon. member, that while he talks about other products from other provinces coming into the Province, he has to bear in mind that these products come in almost exclusively through local wholesalers and local brokers who also employ people in Newfoundland. So, it is not only the local manufacturing sector that does employ people, while in fact they do, but we also recognize that other products that come in to compete with local manufactured products, also come in and provide employment as they come through the system to Newfoundlanders as well. If you look at all the products -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. TULK: By leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: If you look at all the products that are going in and did a fair analysis, Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree that our provincial policies are the appropriate ones for our circumstances.

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

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

Earlier this week, I asked the Minister of Government Services and Lands a question concerning on site septic waste disposal and water supply for rural Newfoundland and I have to say that I was actually embarrassed for the minister, I felt bad for him. I had a few questions lined up, Mr. Speaker, and I was not going to go back with the two questions, the follow-up questions, to the minister because he never had a clue on what he was talking about and it was obvious when he stood on his feet. Even when he went in the media there, he still showed that he did not understand the question because he was talking about cabin lots.

The major concern here, Mr. Speaker, was with residential lots in rural Newfoundland and I can understand now why the people of the Province this morning, in a poll on the open line shows, said that sixty-one point nine per cent of the people of Newfoundland give the Premier an `f' with ministers like those who do not have a clue about what is going on in their departments.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a report card here on Premier Brian Tobin assessed by the people of Newfoundland, `f' and here is what it says and I can understand why, because we are not getting answers. We are standing in this House of Assembly day after day after day and the Premier is on his feet every day giving a performance for the media, day in, day out.

MR. T. OSBORNE: He is like a paint shaker at Sears.

MR. J. BYRNE: One of the members here said: he is like the paint shaker at Sears, when he gets up and goes like this all the time shaking his hands. That is what he is like.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can understand now why the people of the Province are so upset with the Premier of this Province. I have it broken down here. I will give you the ratings, Mr. Speaker, a: very good or excellent, 19 per cent, higher than I thought it would be, Mr. Speaker; b: fair to satisfactory, 15.8 per cent; c: just barely passable, 3.17 per cent, unsatisfactory, 4.76 per cent; f: dismal failure, 57.14 per cent, 61.9 per cent altogether, Mr. Speaker, gives them an f. There was one individual on this morning who said, the Premier, if they could give him a z they would give him a z, z minus, that's what he said, a zero.

Back to the topic; now the minister stood in his place and he showed that he did not understand - and I know he wrote letters back in May between the people in the department. He was given direction. He was questioned, Mr. Speaker, on concerns. I wonder if the minister knows that there are people within his own department who oppose the new system where you are going to privatize the inspections on building lots in rural Newfoundland.

The problem I have with this, they are talking about taking away from the health inspector. I will use myself for an example. If I were to build in rural Newfoundland today, where there is no water and sewer, Mr. Speaker, I would hire a consultant to go out and inspect the site, to do the design work on it, to install a system and come back and inspect the system. I am paying that individual to do this. Now where is the independent inspection on this? I know for a fact that the department, Mr. Speaker, was advised not to go along with this. Why are they doing it? Because, Mr. Speaker, they are creating jobs, creating work for their buddies, the engineers. I have to question certain things within the department, who's pushing this? The minister said it cost $400.00. Well I spoke to geo-technical people, Mr. Speaker, and they told me the bottom would be $700 and it could go as high as $1,500. I am asking the minister, why this attack on rural Newfoundland? Why are they trying to force young people in Newfoundland and Labrador out of rural Newfoundland? It is ridiculous what this government is up to.

I just saw the Minister of Finance taking his seat. They are talking about bringing in retail sales tax on automobiles, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to now bring in a tax. They are going to want the people in rural Newfoundland again and all over this Province, Mr. Speaker, to pay taxes on money they did not spend.

Mr. Speaker, we have a clown in the House of Assembly. A clown over there, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the Government House Leader.

The Government House Leader now, and I hate to say this but, he is catching what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has and that is this: that the only reason why God gave you a brain of course, was to keep your head from caving in, I say to the Government House Leader. That is what is going on over there so you should split up and get back in your seat because I do not want the minister or the Government House Leader of this House to catch what you have.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have to wait for the Minister of Government Services and Lands to address the points I brought up.

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Cape St. Francis is where he likes to be, in the sewer.

Mr. Speaker, in the response, he indicated to me that public health inspectors are not to be out there inspecting. Well, I have to say to the member that public health inspectors are one of the groups that can certainly and in the private sector, design systems.

All we are talking about in this particular response is the design of a system - Well, I will say to the member here, I will read to the member here - I say to the member here that the groups of people who can go out and design systems for sewer systems that are less than 1,000 gallons because this does not apply to anything above that, the policy still remains in place. Let me say to the member, that approved designs will be limited to those persons deemed qualified by the Government Services Centre and those people qualified were engineers, certified engineering technicians, certified public health inspectors et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member, we have taken the liberty to allow the private sector to go out and design these systems. We should be the people to go out and inspect the designs because that is what we are put in place to do as a Government Services Department. But I will say to the member also, and in reference to the Member for Bonavista South, it was a nice trip when I went out to the Bonavista Peninsula and visited the trailway out there, the branch line, the former CN rail line. We also visited a number of the trestles that we were talking about as well and we had a good look at those. We met with a number of people out there, a number of groups, had excellent meetings and we are certainly in the process of taking care of that situation out there for the two members who are involved.

I would say to the members out there that they were very receptive to me when I came out. They took part in the meetings with me. They also travelled with me along the way.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Maybe one of these days I will go to Cape St. Francis with the member for down there, and see what he can show me in terms of the nice, scenic area that he has.

I would recommend to anybody here that you go out and have a look at this rail line. This is a nice place for people to go on ATVs, snowmobiles in the winter, a real good area to get tied into the main tourism. That is certainly a good area in which to start your tourism ride, I would say to the Member for Cape St. Francis. Perhaps you should go out there and get on your ATV, get on your snowmobile out there and enjoy life for a change without having to look at the dark side, the deep side, all the time, down in the sewer. You could get a chance to get out there, get on your snowmobile and four-wheeler and have a good time and really enjoy yourself out there. Then perhaps you could come back after Christmas, when we get back in the House again, and really come with a very positive attitude towards what we are trying to do for this Province.

Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we are always here to entertain questions from members like the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to have a few words regarding the questions that I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Legislature today, and they were two or three very serious questions, questions that deserve very serious answers. I know the minister is trying to counteract the negative things that are happening to the seal hunt as it relates to the propaganda and the lies and the innuendo that are being put forward by the IFAW.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says one way of fighting the IFAW, one way of counteracting them, is to leave them alone and they will go away. I wish that were true, and I hope that happens, because I have been of a similar thought myself, and I have said that right here in this House, that maybe we bring too much attention to the seal hunt. Maybe we talk about it too much. Maybe we are taking it a step too far and fuelling the fire in order to get those people activated and get them on the move again. Because we know what the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, we know what motivates them. It is the almighty dollar. It is not a case where we have a group of people in this country or in this world, if you would, because it goes much further than Canada that is so concerned over the conservation of seals that they want to come here and stop a hunt.

That is not what it is all about. That is a front! What we are talking about is people who see a way to make an easy dollar to come here and try to play on people's emotions to try and stop this particular way of life for Newfoundlanders.

Sealing is an industry that has great potential for employing hundreds of people right here in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not have the answer; I do not know what we can do. That is why I am asking the minister. I do not know what we can do to stop what is happening here today.

I say to members opposite that I got a phone call this morning from an individual who had visited the IFAW offices up in - I am not sure if it was Toronto or not. He told me while he was there; echoing his thoughts and his suggestions to them, of what they could do and where they could go, the phones never stopped ringing. From what he led me to believe, they were people calling to offer donations and to offer support. Obviously, they are getting through to somebody. Somebody is listening to them.

I also hear that there is a massive campaign going to be taking place sometime in February or March of next year. That should never be allowed to happen. We have a campaign on the go now right here in this Province, that is trying to counteract it, and I fear that the minister and this government are not doing enough. The minister talked about how he was down to the Delta Hotel and they had a dinner there, and there is a conference on the go there. I fear we are talking to the converted. We know what those people can do. We saw what they did with the big boat hunt that happened some years ago. We know they will stop nothing short of doing whatever it is that it takes to show that this hunt should be stopped. That is what scares me.

I would like to let the minister know that whatever we can do over here on this side, whatever we can do to support the efforts of this government to stop and, I suppose, to expose the IFAW, what their tactics are and what they are all about, and what they are trying to do and their reason for doing it, then we will be part of that along with the minister, along with the government. Because in my district alone there is an industry about to start there that is going to need seals in order to employ people and to give them a way of life whereby they can stay at home and support their families.

Mr. Speaker, I call on members opposite, I call on the minister, to do whatever it takes, and I think it takes a lot more than what we have done up until now. I do not have the answers, but I plead with the minister to counteract those traitors, those so-called Newfoundlanders that lend their name to a letter saying they are against the seal hunt because you are a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because they are movie stars or because somebody who writes poems or writes verses, that is supposed to give them some degree of importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not the way.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if those names were names of fishermen from Bonavista Bay or Trinity Bay or Conception Bay, it would concern me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, I call on -

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, since 1985 I have spent most of the time, about 85 cent to 90 per cent of the House opening, sitting down in the House of Assembly listening, debating back and forth, and I am not going to waste the time of this hon. House, answering or debating that question with the Member for Bonavista South. I am on the record for combating the IFAW. I am certainly not going to add any fuel to the fire that can further counteract the sealing industry in Newfoundland.

The sealing industry is moving forward at a rapid pace and it will continue in spite of the IFAW.

MR. FITZGERALD: I hope you are right.

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