May 29, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 35


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House today that work can proceed immediately on school construction projects in Districts 4 and 9 as a result of an interim agreement announced late yesterday by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation and the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I am referring specifically to projects at Dunne Memorial Academy, Dunne Primary, and St. Anne's School in District 9, and St. Joseph's High School in District 4. The projects total $4.3 million and affect over 600 students.

As a result of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, work will begin soon and parents and children in those two districts can be assured that the necessary projects will be completed in time for the 1998-1999 school year beginning in September.

I want to congratulate both groups on the interim agreement for Districts 4 and 9 and for realizing the importance of getting on with those projects now since time is of the essence for the next school year. Obviously, they have placed a high priority on the children and their education.

Both the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation and the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association have agreed to submit outstanding differences over other properties to a mediation process as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I want to wish the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation and the Newfoundland and Labrador School Board Association continued success in their negotiations as it relates to all other school properties.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side of the House always support reaching an agreement in a properly constituted forum. We are not advocates of threats to reach agreement. In fact, I understand that discussions were ongoing and they were moving along. We certainly support it. We want to see construction get under way, because I am fairly familiar with the situation in Dunne Memorial Academy and the situation out in that area. We are delighted to see things proceed there.

I certainly hope the other outstanding areas on properties and that will be done within the time frames that are set down by the act, I think we passed last year, January of 1999, and done in a very orderly manner without affecting adversely any students here in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I informed the House of the agricultural awareness campaign that we have initiated. As stated, the goal of the campaign is to raise the public awareness of agricultural products produced in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the cranberry industry is developing. Our department is investigating the potential to commercially produce cranberries in the Province. It is well known to all members that there is an abundance of edible wild berries throughout our Province. Two of the biggest deterrents in developing a berry producing industry have been low prices and the high cost to establishing an operation. However, the recent increase in consumption of cranberries, combined with medical research on the benefits of this product, have made the industry more viable and have triggered major expansion in North American markets.

Difficulties in securing land for industry development in other jurisdiction have led a number of major growers and processors to look for expansion of their operations into new locations. Open peatlands, which are ideal sites for cranberries, cover a land area of approximately 1.6 million hectares in our Province and thus present a major opportunity.

In order to determine which type of cranberry will perform well in the Province, a variety of trials have been established at our department's Pynn's Brook station on the West Coast. Four varieties of cranberries were planted and cultivated. Newfoundland and Labrador has never cultivated cranberries. As a result, it appears we may be free of major cranberry pests that occur elsewhere. In order to maintain this advantage, no importation of cranberry vines will be permitted into the Province. Cranberry vines which are cut and baled in the same matter as hay will be developed.

Mr. Speaker, the department will soon be in a position to seek expressions of interest to commercially produce cranberries in the Province. It is our intention to see this industry grow, and we are working with the Department of Development and Rural Renewal and the minister, and will be finalizing a cranberry development strategy for the Province. This is an opportunity for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I fully support the minister in his bid to have this new industry develop. I shouted to the minister, the Government House Leader. I am expecting him to rise every day on all those good news statements and announce the buffalo ranch that he had talked about that was going to provide so many opportunities here in this Province just a couple of short years ago. We await that announcement with great interest because I think it will create a lot of opportunities.

Very seriously, Mr. Speaker, I compliment the minister because I think we have to start looking at the things that grow naturally here in this Province; not only cranberries, I say to the minister, but blueberries, partridgeberries, bakeapples. I know there are some initiatives already. I think of the winery out in Whitbourne that uses some of those berries. I think of the industry, I think it is Indian Bay Foods, down in the minister's district, down in Centreville, that has some positive things there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Down in my own district there is an initiative right now taking place where harvesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I think I have leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Here comes the buffalo; this is it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide members of this House with a status report on the Province's new approach to regional economic development.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: In fifteen years' time you will announce this.

Members will be aware that a centrepiece of this government's approach to regional economic development is to engage all relevant stakeholders to participate in identifying, prioritizing and actioning business and economic development opportunities in all areas of the Province. This is now happening on regional basis through the Regional Economic Development Boards established in the twenty economic zones throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that eighteen of the twenty boards have completed their strategic economic plans. In developing these plans, the REDBs consulted with and drew upon the knowledge and expertise of key economic stakeholders and the public at large in their respective areas.

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House are aware -

I have the wrong page here, or they are mixed up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: That is Chuck.

Now the REDBS are working with partners in their zones to implement the economic development activities outlined in their strategic economic plans. The REDBs are the coordinators and, where necessary, catalysts for these regional economic development activities. For example: The Southwestern Marine and Mountain Zone Corporation has signed an agreement with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited which establishes an environmentally and economically feasible forestry management system for sustainable harvesting in Zone 10 on the West Coast.

The recent announcement concerning the snowmobile tourism product development initiative along the West Coast and in Central Newfoundland had its genesis in the activities of the Snowmobile Federation and a number of REDBs in Western and Central Newfoundland, whose support for this initiative was crucial to its success.

The first Memorandum of Understanding between a REDB and a provincial government line department has been signed between the Labrador Straits Development Corporation and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This agreement outlines a partnership approach to the development of a diversified, sustainable fishery in the Straits.

Mr. Speaker, one of my responsibilities is to Chair the Cabinet Committee on Rural Revitalization. Over the past number of months the Committee has travelled the Province to meet with seventeen of the Regional Economic Development Boards. Each board has presented their economic plans to the Cabinet Committee, and we are encouraged and excited by the very real development opportunities that are emerging.

For our part, we have requested each board to draw from their strategic economic plans the five or six top priority development initiatives for early implementation. All seventeen of the REDBs visited have submitted initiatives with a number of them already under way. The Cabinet Committee is committed to fast-tracking the advancement of all the identified opportunities wherever possible.

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House are aware that there are no magical solutions or quick fixes to the economic challenges facing our rural communities. Rebuilding and diversifying the provincial economy is an ongoing and long-term goal. For most of our history, we have not acted collectively. Most communities and many of the key stakeholders have acted independently, or in isolation of one another, to advance narrow economic interests.

The newly established Regional Economic Development Boards provide a new mechanism for taking a broader regional and collective approach to economic growth opportunities and strategies throughout the Province. The strategic economic plans will provide all partners with a basis for co-ordinated and focused supports. The common denominator in all plans is that they are designed to pave the way for private sector led economic growth, through business formation, expansion and diversification.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members on both sides of this House to meet with and continue to work with the Regional Economic Development Boards in your area as they move from the planning to the action phase of their mandates. This government is taking the work of these boards very seriously, as is the Government of Canada. We are committed to working with the boards to seize all opportunities for economic growth in the Province.

Thank you.

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

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

I am glad to respond to the minister's statement. I thank the minister for giving me a copy before coming to the House today.

There is no doubt about it that people at the grass roots level in these boards are putting plans in place, working from the grass roots up, to try to get something moving in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where we desperately need jobs today. There is no doubt about it that a plan is needed and these people have to be involved at the grass roots level, and I commend those people.

I speak to the boards. As a matter of fact, I have an appointment to meet with the board in my area very soon, to sit down and talk about their plans.

I notice some good things there. For example in tourism, to which the minister alluded, there is some really good potential in all parts of the Province, and in my district it is no different for tourism development. Engaging people in that debate in rural Newfoundland and making them part of that is important, I believe. I will say that hopefully these things will turn into - the bottom line, I guess, is jobs, something that is tangible and that people are going to see, and the timing for that is very important, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is right. The best plan in the world, I say to the minister - and I have said this before and he has agreed with me - is no good unless you can execute the plan. This plan that is being put together at the grass roots level is very important.

I would also like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the development associations who have done some very good grass roots work in this Province over years and years are sort of feeling left out in this process lately. They should be commended for the work they have done over the years and get involved also.

I hope that at the end of the day this plan is turned into jobs in this Province because rural Newfoundland and Labrador desperately need it right now and rural renewal is going to depend on a plan being executed. That is what the end of the day will lead to hopefully, jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today a former minister and Member of the House of Assembly, Mr. Tom Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Oral Questions

 

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

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

After about fourteen months of study with respect to the Statutory Review Committee's work on the Workers' Compensation Commission, the minister announced yesterday government's response in terms of implementing the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Environment and Labour today a few questions because what was announced yesterday by the minister can only be described as a watered down version of the report. Government spent approximately $300,000 on an independent, arm's length report and did very little in terms of implementing some of the very fundamental recommendations that required change to the Workers' Compensation Commission.

I would like to ask the minister this. With respect to the report dealing with CPP offset, the committee recommended that the act be amended to reduce the percentage of CPP disability offset from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. Over the last several months the minister has indicated on a number of occasions that government was seriously looking at doing exactly that. Minister I would like to ask you today: Why did government not implement that recommendation of the report suggested to them?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to say that as the Commission's financial system improved we liked to take the improvement and give it to the injured workers. That is exactly what we have done. If, for example, we were to have accepted the CPP offset at 50 per cent it would have increased the unfunded liability to the Commission by $31,900,000 and it would have had an annual rate of assessment of $1,900,000. It would immediately have increased the rate that the employer pays by seven cents. As we already know, in this Province we have the highest rate in all of Canada.

I would like to remind the House as well that the employers in the Province are paying a surcharge of $13,400,000 per year into that unfunded liability, which equates to forty-four cents per 100 of payroll assessment. Therefore if we were to increase that particular situation to 50 per cent, it would basically put the Commission back to where it was before we did the realignment of the Commission, and I guess put it near bankruptcy. What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the Commission does have a long-term viability for the injured workers who are employed in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it would be a good answer if it was based on any fact whatsoever. The reality is that the unfunded liability portion of the Workers' Compensation Commission is four or five years ahead of its plan right now.

Minister, the reality is that there is a good, sound, fundamental reason why this recommendation was made the way it was; because the Canada Pension Plan is a pension plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a contributory plan. The reason they recommended 50 per cent offset was simply this, Mr. Speaker, because half of that plan is paid for by employees.

My question to the minister is this: What is it that you tell injured workers today who are living below the poverty line who are eligible for Canada Pension, something they have contributed to, that this government has taken away from them and not implemented a recommendation by the independent report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, first of all, dispel the myth that the Commission is ahead of schedule in the target date that it set before it. In fact, it was ahead of schedule, but because of the $20 million benefit package that we have put in here with the spousal benefits, and the $5,000 per fatality if a worker gets killed while working, plus the 5 per cent offset we have already had from eighty to seventy-five, puts the plan back to 2012. So we are not ahead of schedule; we are right on schedule at 2012.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, many of the appeals process that go to Chief Review Commissioner come from the notion of deeming. In the report it is very clear and very specific on what the statutory review recommended to the minister and government on what they should do on deeming. The minister announced yesterday that the deeming process will be monitored for yet another year by a sub-committee of the expanded board of directors who will assess the application of deeming on a one-year pilot basis.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: Why put a review committee in place which will make specific recommendations on deeming, which are not necessarily all financial ones, I say to the minister? Why didn't you accept the very specific recommendations on deeming, as opposed to adding another bureaucratic committee to the process that will not provide any benefit to injured workers?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not correct either. The Commission, as we speak, are changing the way they have done deeming. In fact, we are looking at new labour market information. We have already changed the times of hours that the injured worker would come back on ease back. Up to recently, they could be called in at one hour at any time of the day, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. We said that is not going to happen any more. They can be called in for no less than four hours at one particular time. At five days a week, that will give them twenty hours. We have already looked at transferrable skills, and we have looked at conflicting medical opinion.

What I want to say to the hon. member is that we are not putting out another committee for another year. What we are doing is, we want that committee that is made up of the Commission, that is made up of the employer, by the way, and the employee, and an independent person on the board, to work with the Commission - that they are there working and responsible for - to make sure those things the Commission is doing are actually being applied.

I am not saying another year. They have the thing in front of them. It is a committee of the Commission that represents the injured workers, that represents the workers, that is there to keep the Commission's feet to the fire to make sure the system is there to protect the injured worker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: No more bureaucracy, it is just a committee of the Commission appointed by the minister that will report to the minister on ongoing problems on deeming process. That is what the minister is saying essentially, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this with respect to deeming: Is this recommendation implemented, Minister, that the Workers' Compensation Commission must demonstrate, through the vocational rehabilitation plan, medical reports and other documentation, that a worker has the physical abilities, employment qualifications, and aptitudes necessary to competitively find, compete for, and hold employment in the occupation or group of occupations on which the earning capacity is based? Is that recommendation implemented, Mr. Minister?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that what we have done at the Commission is one of the recommendations that was suggested, and that is when an injured worker's reports would come to the Commission. What happened in many cases was that the occupational therapist reports were given precedence over a general practitioner, and were given precedence over the specialist. What we are saying is that the specialist reports take precedence, but he must operate within a teamwork to make sure that at the end of the day the worker does indeed benefit and get what is rightly his.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the answer to that question is no, that recommendation is not implemented.

Let me ask another question with respect to deeming. Is this recommendation implemented, Minister: Workers will not be deemed where re-entry into the workforce or vocational rehabilitation is impractical. In those instances, injured workers will continue to receive full benefits under the act. Did the minister implement that recommendation?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, what I said about the deeming situation earlier was that there are already corrective measures in the system to deal with it. The committee that will look after it is not a committee that is going to be appointed by me. I am not appointing them. It is going to be the people who are on the board. The board will decide who they will want to be on that committee. With the expanded capacity of the board - we are appointing three new members - it could very well be that somebody from the Injured Workers' Association will be appointed to the board and that person could, in part, be a part of the committee. I am not saying who can or who cannot. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day it will be the committee and the Commission that will make sure that deeming is properly carried out for the worker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, many of the recommendations in this report emanate and come from problems with the board.

I would like to ask the minister this question with respect to deeming. We have seen that there has been, over the past time, no consistency on how people have been deemed off the system. Many of those I have given to the minister personally. I would like to ask him, is this recommendation implemented: that the Workers' Compensation Commission shall develop a process to review deeming decisions to ensure consistency of application so situations that we have seen in the past, where two individuals have been deemed to be, let's say radio dispatchers, one at $25,000 a year and one at $16,000 a year. Is the minster saying that will not happen again?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, as the caseworker down there - there is one particular person who is responsible, who is heading up the deeming process. I would assume, and I would hope, that there would be consistency within the process such that two people in similar circumstances would be deemed the same thing. If not, they will certainly be hearing from me.

As I said earlier, the recommendation that we have here is to keep the Commission's feet to the fire so that indeed the injured worker can be treated fairly, and that is basically where I am coming from.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, one of the sorest points with the Workers' Compensation Commission is deeming. It does not necessarily have to cost a significant amount of money. The problem is not fixed, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it is going to be fixed. We have heard for four years that it is going to be fixed, and another committee is in place, but it is not fixed. You had the opportunity in your hand to do it right now, Minister, and you have passed up that opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question with respect to the Chief Review Commissioner. You have put in the report that all decisions must be made within a three month time frame as opposed to a six month time frame. I applaud the decision but I am afraid that decision, or the implementation of that decision, will not take place because the decisions of the Chief Review Commissioner are still not final and binding.

I would like to ask the minister this: Will he have a second look at that process so that the decisions made by the Chief Review Commissioner are final and binding, both on the Commission and the injured worker, and that the only appeal left after that will be to the Supreme Court?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly we will have a look at it. I am not going to say to you today that the thing will be changed, but I will certainly look at it. Basically what I have said from the beginning is that whatever latitude I have to work with the injured worker, obviously we will do that. At the end of the day we have to remember that the Commission does exist for the worker, for the employer, and for the spouses in families who have met with fatalities. Basically it is a very difficult balancing act, I guess, to be able to do it all, but at the end of the day I think we have a good system and I think we are improving. As the Commission itself improves financially we will take a look at it to be able to do more for the injured worker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A final question: Will the minister make a commitment today that somebody from the Injured Workers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador will be appointed to the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Commission?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit to that right now. What I will say to you is that we will seriously look at all of the applications that come in and basically, like I said to you earlier, assess everything. At the end of the day if we think it would be beneficial for the Injured Workers' Association to be on the board, then we will weigh that and consider it and see what we can do at that time.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

As the minister is well aware, the federal minister, Mr. Anderson, on Wednesday announced the Atlantic groundfish quota plan for 1998. And you, Minister, stood here in this House and read a Ministerial Statement, between the noise and desk thumping from your colleagues, about how positive this management plan would be for the Province.

What the minister did not include in the statement was the increase in quota in Greenland halibut for area 4R,4S,4T, otherwise known as the Gulf. This was an allocation, Mr. Speaker, of 4,000 metric ton of Greenland halibut, also known as turbot, of which 85 per cent of the quota goes to Quebec fishermen and 15 per cent will be allowed to Newfoundland fishermen.

Minister, the fishermen from Quebec and Newfoundland had reached an agreement on fishing this stock. The agreement was that sharing arrangements would be 82 per cent for Quebec and 18 per cent for Newfoundland. Although it is still allowing Quebec the lion's share of this particular allocation, it was acceptable to both groups of fishermen. Obviously our federal minister is still not listening to fishermen, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, do you agree with this unfair allocation? If not, what do you or your government intend to do to correct this unacceptable announcement?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when I made the announcement in the House of Assembly yesterday on the 3Ps cod fishery, I announced exactly that, the 20,000 metric ton announced for the South Coast of Newfoundland 3Ps cod fishery. That is good news.

As far as the question about the reduction in the Newfoundland share of the Gulf turbot quota, I am saying very clearly: It is not acceptable to this government. It is not acceptable to the people of this Province. I am on record a week ago of writing the minister. I wrote him a letter yesterday and requested an immediate meeting to discuss that. It is a reduction in 1998 and a further reduction to 12 per cent in 1999. I discussed it with the people who are now occupying the office out on the West Coast last night; I will be meeting with them as soon as possible, but my main thing to do is to meet with the minister immediately.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister is 100 per cent right. Today, and even all last night, the federal offices over on the West Coast are occupied by fishermen. It is unfortunate that fishermen have to take this approach in order to have people listen.

Minister, the Greenland halibut stock in the Gulf is one fish stock adjacent to this Province that shows good signs of recruitment. Considering the fact that the TAC for this stock has had an increase for the last three years, and if we accept the federal minister's announcement of the allocation of this stock whereby the next two years will see Quebec get 88 per cent and Newfoundland 12 per cent, the discrepancy becomes much greater.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, this announcement will be taking millions of dollars out of the fishermen's pockets and away from fishermen's families.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if his government is going to sit back and allow the fishery of the future to exist only for foreign nations and for other provinces in this country?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will not say the member opposite is as bad, but he is almost as bad, as the member opposite here when it comes to fisheries issues and attitudes in this Province.

That member opposite knows full well the position of this government on fishery related matters and quotas for Newfoundland and Labrador. We fought as a party, as a government, for an increase in the inshore allocation for the fishermen in this Province. What have we today? A 40,000 ton allocation for the inshore boats. We have a 98 million pound crab harvest. We have a scallop harvest. We are protecting the Newfoundland fisherman. There are no foreigners inside the 200-mile limit, no foreign activity inside the 200-mile limit.

As far as the Gulf quota on the turbot, we do not agree with the reduction in the percentage rate to the people in this Province. We support and we are saying that the principle of adjacency must be adhered to. So I will not sit in this House of Assembly and listen to the hon. member make political accusations that this government is not fighting for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that is not what his colleague up in Ottawa is saying. Even though there may not be a lot of foreign fishing inside the 200-mile limit, our fish are being caught outside the 200-mile limit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, last year we saw an allocation of 6,000 ton of cod in area 4R,4S,3Pn. This year the FRCC suggested a 5,000 ton allocation based on the latest scientific information.

The federal minister announced on Wednesday a 3,000 ton allocation for sentinel and index fisheries only. Minister, who is advising the federal government? Who is giving Minister Anderson his advice?

Here we have fishermen, scientists, and the FRCC offering the same advice and the minister does something completely different. Minister, is your department or yourself involved in any decision- making that affects the livelihoods of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member did not say is that the FRCC also said in its report, even though it advised the minister to have a 6,000 ton quota this year, that the Northern cod stocks and the Gulf stocks biomass are worse than pre-1992. Six years after the closure of our groundfish industry, six years after, the stocks, the bio-mass, are worse than pre-1992.

An hon. gentleman in this House of Assembly is on public record as saying that we should not do anything about the seals because he is supporting the IFAW.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. EFFORD: The hon. gentleman here. He is supporting his IFAW buddies.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

If that minister is indicating that this member here supports the IFAW -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - I think he should clarify that statement right here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Because what the minister is saying is wrong. If he is going to identify a member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. FITZGERALD: - then let him name the district, Mr. Speaker, and not make allegations of members on this side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is no point of order.

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

MR. EFFORD: I apologize to the member. He thought I was referring to my colleague opposite here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Quidi-Vidi.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Quidi-Vidi, Mr. Speaker. Let the record show.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is not allowed to use Question Period when asked a question by one member to make false statements about another.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In reference to what I was saying about the biomass of Northern cod and Gulf cod to pre-1992, the federal minister is proceeding with caution. What I would like of all Members of this House of Assembly, including my colleague opposite, the fisheries critic, is to put more emphasis on dealing with the problem that we have today. Worse than ever the foreigners were, worse than ever the Canadian factory freezer trawlers were, are the several million seals we have eating our fish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

On May 19 in this House, I asked the minister questions regarding preschool children being denied adequate access to speech language pathology because the Janeway only has five language pathologists and there are 300 referrals per year of an intensive nature on the Avalon Peninsula alone.

The minister stated in this House, and quoted in the media the next day: Every available speech pathologist that we have been able to hire has been hired.

I ask the minister now: Would she still stand by that statement?

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

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

Certainly every board has a global budget and has identified the number of resource persons they need to hire for a particular area, whether it be nurses or doctors or professionals, or any other sort of professional. If they have allocated a certain amount of funding for a particular number of professionals, they have in fact hired those available that they can hire within those means. That is what I said, and that is what I stand by.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not what she said, that is not what is in Hansard, and it is not what was published in The Evening Telegram.

Minister, a bright young speech pathologist from my district left this Province to find work elsewhere, and I know of many others who are unemployed here today, and the minister stated differently.

In fact, I referenced that the administration of the Health Care Corporation, and administrations prior to amalgamation, have continuously indicated that they do not have money to support a further increase in staff.

I ask the minister: Will she admit that the reason children are being denied access to this important treatment they need is not because of a lack of speech pathologists but because of a lack of government money to hire these people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As the member opposite knows, there are speech pathologists and there are a number of professionals who bridge various departments. In particular, this department works very closely with the schools through the education system. These people work in the school system from September to June. We also have people through the Department of Health and Community Services via the boards who also provide services, Mr. Speaker. So there is certainly an interest in coordinating how we deliver those services. In fact, there were some discussions awhile back on looking at how we can best utilize the resources of those people who provide these services through the school system.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at coordinating those types of activities, particularity now that we have brought the departments together to try to integrate services for children, and we will continue to do that. But it is clear, and it is very honest to say, that each of our boards have a budget, each of the boards make a decision on the types and numbers of professionals they hire based on their best judgements, and I stand by their best judgements.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make clear what the minister stated in this House and in the public. She has been contacted, I am quite sure, or her office, that the statements were not accurate. I am asking her now: Will she admit that the reason they are not getting hired - I am simply asking her - is not because they are not available but because they are not providing the money to do it? If the minister wants names of people who are out there today unemployed, who are looking for a job and they will not hire when the demand far exceeds - three times the demand - the number that is provided there, I will give the minister names of people who will go to work tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I think we have to be sensible not only in our answers but in our questions. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there are budgets that are provided to the various boards. Those boards make the decision on who they hire, how many they hire, with the people who have been allocated for hiring to go to the various boards. All of those who are available to be hired within the allocations made by the boards have been hired.

I do know there is a vacancy in one of the regions because they have not been able to allocate, or identify rather, a person to go to that area. I will say it again in a more sensible way: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you have to function within the budget you have and the allocation of resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a new concept. I think it is important for the members opposite to know and perhaps get a briefing on how the boards operate and how they have budgets. They work within their budgets. They identify, in fact, how they go out to allocate resources and to fit the professionals to go into those resources. That is what I said, Mr. Speaker, and I stand by it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, government just last week introduced amendments to the Public Tender Act. In the new policy that government has just incorporated, many of their recommendations were recommendations that were put forward by the Opposition, which we received during our consultation process. I commend government for accepting our input; however, some of the recommendations that we put forward are not yet put into those amendments.

My question for the minister is this: Minister, can you give us a time frame as to when the central registry of local manufactures will be put in place so that government will have a source to refer to when compiling a tender? And, can you tell us: How will this information for the central registry be processed?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there is right now in existence a directory of local manufacturers and the products that are manufactured in this Province. What we will do is build on that directory. We will certainly go public with an ad or some other mechanism of trying to ensure that it is a complete directory of everything that is available in this Province.

We have started that already. We have certainly put the system in place to make that happen. We realize the importance of this, and the importance of making sure that every product that is available in this Province has been identified, so that in future when people are looking to bid they know what can be manufactured in this Province, and that local contractors will have a chance at fair and full benefit.

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

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

One of the items that was not put in was the breaking down of the tenders. In the past we have seen a number of tenders, such as the Cabot pins and banners, and just last week the Memorial University tender for security uniforms. When tenders are asked for the supply of a vast number of items, all to be supplied by one supplier, this bars a number of local manufacturers because they are unable to supply every item inclusive in that tender call.

Will the minister tell the House if this central registry will be used to determine what products are produced here, with the aim to designing tenders so that local manufacturers are given the benefit, given the upper hand? In other words, break the tenders down into workable units so that local manufacturers have first option. This has not been done in the past.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we would like to see happen. I think we all recognize that in the past there has not been full and fair opportunity for local manufacturers to access these contracts. We would like to see when the specifications are done up that in fact, working with this registry, we know exactly what is available in this Province, what can be produced here, so that when the specifications are done up they are done up in such a way that it will take local content into consideration.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, I ask: In future, will tenders that are put out by government be broken down so that manufacturers right here in this Province have the opportunity to be the accepted tenderers, whereas tenders that call for a vast number of items no longer exist; that we ask for items in workable units where local manufacturers can bid on these items; that items that are no longer manufactured in this Province are not incorporated into a tender call that asks for items that are manufactured in this Province?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the hon. member is putting forward. That is certainly something we are looking at, because again we recognize that when you have a large contract it is very difficult for people to compete on a fair and full opportunity basis for various components of it. That is certainly something we are looking at, and that was the rationale behind going the route we have gone with revising the Public Tender Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

 

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

 

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for St. John's East, I believe it was, asked me some questions concerning the - they may have been raised by the Member for St. John's West. I remember those from the Member for St. John's East. They were concerning the cost of French language lessons for the Premier, was that it? I will share some information with him and his colleagues, and the rest of us in the House.

We participate with the federal government in a program, the promotion of official languages.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) French.

MR. DICKS: The member next to me suggests I should answer in French. But peut-ętre que je devrais m'arręter de... I would say that the total cost of the program each year, from now until the year 2002, is $480,000 per year. It is cost-shared 75-25. The provincial government's share is $120,000, therefore, of the $480,000.

That total amount not only provides French lessons and services for civil servants, members of the executive, Cabinet ministers, people around the Province. It is offered in other areas for those people who have need in the course of the performance of their official duties to understand and communicate in French. It also provides translation, speeches, things like this, services under the agreement dealing with the federal government as well, so it is fairly broad-based. There is a manager, there is a secretary, there are three full-time and seven part-time personnel. As I say, they do more than just provide lessons for those so interested.

If, however, you took the total salary budget, which is $247,500, and assuming that all of that, and all of the instructors' time, and all of the salaries, including that of the secretary and everyone else, were devoted to providing lessons, which it is not, the Province's share of that would be $61,750. There are 200 civil servants who participate in the program, and the average is 120 hours per annum. That is three hours a week for forty weeks. The total, therefore, of the hours divided into our cost is $2.57 per hour.

I haven't checked through the Premier's schedule to see how many hours he has actually spent, but judging by my own experience, and knowing what he does, I would say if he gets a lesson in a week or every two weeks he is a very fortunate man indeed, and I suspect it is a lot less than that. Assuming the worst, from the hon. member's point of view, and that the Premier actually were able to find two hours a week to devote to learning Canada's other official language, it would cost the taxpayers of the Province 100 hours and a total of about $260-odd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to debate, I would move Motions 5 and 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce the following bills, carried:

"An Act To Amend The Medical Act". (Bill No. 20)

"An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act". (Bill No. 21)

On motion, Bill Nos. 20 and 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order No. 3.(a), the Resource Committee, Concurrence debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 3, the Concurrence debate on the Resource Committee.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, the Chairman of that Committee was the Member for Labrador West, who is unavoidably absent from the House today due to matters in his district but will be speaking in the debate on Monday to put forward his views.

It is my understanding, at least from my own participation in that Committee as the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, that the questions were very insightful, especially from the Member for Bonavista South. I know my friend the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would concur. He, I suspect, was also in front of the Committee, and I suspect also answered the questions with a great deal of detail.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) truth from him.

MR. TULK: What? Mr. Speaker, that kind of attitude on behalf of the Member for Bonavista South is awfully unusual. The Member for Bonavista South never comes off in that vein except when he is in the public. You get him in a committee where there is no press around, where he feels he is not being recorded publicly, and he is one of the most cordial and - I don't know how to describe him. I mean, he speaks so well. He seeks answers to questions on matters of public policy so well; and where he should agree, in my opinion, he agrees.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: The Resource Committee.

Where he wants to give you the kind of information that can help you, as a minister, he is all there to do it. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista South, as I was saying, was one of the most insightful yet critical people to sit on that committee. Mr. Speaker, I only wish the hon. gentleman would carry that kind of behaviour through the House. I will tell you, it would be much more productive; this House would be much more productive.

I would ask every member of this House, as soon as Hansard is available - which will be later, I guess, this year - to read through the kind of discussion for example that we had in the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. As I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I believe he was the only gentleman there from the Opposition. I am criticizing people for that, they had other things on. That night I believe he was the only member there from the Opposition and I can say to you, without a doubt, that the number of questions, the insight of the hon. gentleman was most (inaudible).

I believe the Member for St. John's South also sits on that committee and, Mr. Speaker, he displayed none of the - is the Member for St. John's West on it as well?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, she is on social services.

MR. TULK: She is on social services. The Member for St. John's South is, isn't he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: He is on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that I understand from other members of the committee that he too had no trashing. He was not out trying to trash the minister, not at all. He was not out trying to put the lid on anybody or anything like that. He was all there to keep everything open and above board and to see that the discussion was alive and well and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am not (inaudible). No, no, the hon. gentleman did very well.

Mr. Speaker, I think the discussions in those committees, in the Estimates committees, are good discussions. I can say to you categorically that it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Member for Labrador West, to move - after, I suspect, some suitable debate this morning - that the report of the Resource Committee be accepted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) carry it.

MR. TULK: Not going to carry it - right away. I knew that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get some agreement from the Government House Leader that we have intervening speakers, providing no one exceeds the thirty minutes, even though they may be up more than once. I know last year - I don't think it is any big deal. We are down to less than three hours anyway. It will allow more speakers an opportunity to speak on their different departments, provided no one individual goes beyond thirty minutes, if they spoke for a period of time. That would spread it a little further. Would the Government House Leader be in agreement that we would have probably ten and ten or whatever, or some agreement that you would not necessarily be limited to speaking once, provided your total does not exceed the thirty minutes that would normally be allowed?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that, as he said, as long as the total of any one individual does not exceed thirty minutes, which is what is normally allowed in the debate. We would have to understand, for the case of a certain gentleman, that of course this is being done by leave. If a certain gentleman, who in our opinion has turned his back on the people of this Province, goes on with the kind of stuff that he went on with last night then I am not going to stand here and listen to him get on with that stuff so I will withdraw leave from him. I have no problem, I don't think, with the rest of the people in this (inaudible).

By agreement, yes, I think we would have no problem as long as - let's go ten, ten, back and forth, until a person uses the sum total of thirty minutes. No problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

So that the Chair is clear now on what we have agreed on here, we have agreed that in this debate members can speak up to ten minutes and if there is an intervening speaker then they can speak a second time for ten minutes or a third time for ten minutes until -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. So that is the agreement that we are operating on; these are the rules that we are operating on for this Concurrence debate.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to make a few comments on the Resource Committee. I do not think we have to commit ourselves to stay within the Resource Committee headings there in order to pass some comments.

Sometimes we might have things that we want to say on other headings but because of the time constraints, we are not able to do that.

Getting back to the Committee, Mr. Speaker, and getting back to the meetings we had with the Resource Committee and the comments made by the Government House Leader, I look at those meetings, Mr. Speaker, not as a place to play politics; I look at them as a place to get information.

I remember my first time attending one of those meetings and I think, Mr. Speaker, you were probably the chairman of that particular committee at the time and I was the vice chair. I did not have much information, being new here in the House. I was told: If you are on a committee, you show up. I was not sure what questions to ask or how I was to ask them, but I was not long to fall into the routine.

It is a situation where I know our committee, the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Baie Verte, have gone to those meetings and we have asked the questions that concerned us. We have put forward, Mr. Speaker, some concerns that have been raised in our districts and by some of our colleagues. It was a great place to get information, not only from the minister, but the minister would refer to his staff, and it was a good place to find out what the departmental policy was on certain issues, issues that you normally would not raise here in this House, Mr. Speaker.

For the most part, in fact for the whole part, the minister was not political, the staff was not political, and the committee was not political. I think that is the right way for those committees to function. It is not a place to go and be vindictive against the minister, or to bring up an issue of some great disagreement, comment on it, get his views, get the departmental views and move on. I believe Question Period and debate here in this House is the place for that, and I believe that is the place to play politics, right here within the confines of this House. That is what we are, we are politicians, and if we can't play politics, and if we do not use the process, Mr. Speaker, then I question our commitment to the profession.

It was certainly a good place to get information and to get to know staff as well. Lots of times you call a department and you speak to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, or the Deputy Minister of Development and Rural Renewal and you do not know who you are speaking with. So it is a way, I suppose, to put a face to the name and to realize then, when you pick up the phone, exactly who you are talking with and who you are dealing with.

So it is productive. Even though we have lots of things that we can do with the three hours that is set aside for each one of those headings, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important and I was glad to take part in it actually. I enjoyed it.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which was one of the headings that came under our department - I think we used up approximately two hours that particular night talking about fisheries issues and the seal issue; how important it is that something be done to address the immediate need, Mr. Speaker, the need to have a higher total allowable catch, or total allowable harvest, for seals here in this Province.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to leave any doubt today when the minister stood in his place and just waved his hand frivolously and said: The member opposite. Mr. Speaker, that is why I stood. I didn't stand to get carried on the media or I didn't stand to interrupt the proceedings. But I, for one, don't want to be accused of being a supporter of the IFAW. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, don't want to be accused of being one of those people who go out and wrap their arms around a tree or wrap their arms around a seal or something else, just because it looks cute or is something that my own mind set tells me we should have to protect to live. I think all of those things, all of those things, Mr. Speaker, exist for people. I will put people in front of fish and I will put people in front of seals and I will put people in front of anything within the environment, any day at all, Mr. Speaker.

When I see the damage that is being caused by the seals stocks and I see our people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - when I see it affecting every business in this Province, Mr. Speaker, while we sit and wait for the return of the cod, while we sit and wait for our fishermen to be allowed to go back fishing again, and we see this culprit, millions of them, in excess of 6 million for sure, and probably a better guess is in excess of 8 million, and we hear of one seal eating 1.4 tons of fish a year, Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to understand why our cod is not returning in the amounts, in the recruitment stages that it should be. It is not hard to understand -

MR. TULK: It is interesting to note that seals have not (inaudible) -

MR. FITZGERALD: Exactly. A good observation, I say to the Government House Leader, a good observation. Because this is where you do not get seals in the amounts that we see in other places, and cod is returning in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at what is happening to our salmon stocks, our caplin stocks and our cod stocks today, it is not hard to understand what the biggest culprit is. You do not have to be smart or intelligent to know what seals eat. I am dumb-founded, I suppose, to hear somebody trying to convince me, some scientist or some professor at university - I will not say Memorial University -coming out and saying we are still not sure what seals eat. We are still not sure what seals consume.

I gave the minister a half dozen pictures last night. I read a piece in the paper. I heard the minister say he was looking for pictures, looking for snaps, Mr. Speaker, of people hunting seals and taking fish from the stomach of the seal.

MR. TULK: They are also now starting to find shrimp and small crab.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, absolutely.

I had a call from a gentleman in Brooklyn, a small community - not a fishing community, I might add - a small community in my district where this gentleman enjoys going out and taking a few seals every year; and he supplements his income. He is on long-term disability. When you look at him, it is not hard to understand why he is on long-term disability because he is severely crippled, but he enjoys going out in the boat. He has a professional seal licence. He enjoys going out and taking a few seals every year.

Last year, one Saturday morning, he called me and said: Are you coming this way today? And I said: I do not have to, but if you want me to drop by, I will. I was on my way somewhere else. So I said: What I will do, I will go down to Brooklyn en route, leave here a few minutes early. He said: Okay, make sure, because I have something to show you.

So, I went over and had a little chat with him. He said: Come down stairs, I will show you what I have down in my deep-freeze. We were out seal hunting yesterday and I killed this big old dog-hood seal. He said, I took twenty-eight fish out of his stomach. Some of them, when we put together the bones, we could see it was the backbone so we called that one fish. There must have been eight or ten there with hardly a tooth mark in them. I am talking about fish eight, ten, twelve inches long.

He said: What I did, I took the fish - I wish I had to have a camera with me, he said - and brought it ashore. When I got in, I called into the Department of Fisheries and they told me to call this individual at Memorial University. So I called Memorial University and talked with this professor there - he called him by name - and he ask me if I would hold on to the codfish that was taken from the stomach of the seal. He said: We will send somebody out to examine it to make sure that it came from a seal and make sure it was codfish. Still not willing to believe that they could take codfish from the stomach of a seal.

So he took the fish out of the freezer and laid it on the floor, and I took some pictures of it. It was very obvious what it was. It was quite clear. There were ten or twelve codfish there, ten or fifteen inches long, hardly a tooth mark, taken from the stomach of a seal.

I did not need to get that phone call, I did not need for that gentleman to call me to convince me what seals eat, but he did, and that is why I took the pictures. I thought about them last night as the minister and the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi were having the exchange here. I thought it would be a good time to go and get the pictures and bring them down and give them to the minister, which I did, because I believe in that.

When you see the meagre allocation being put forward by our federal government - and I know this is one area that our own Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is putting effort into, trying to get the seal hunt increased. I know they have put a lot of thought and effort into it, and I have to compliment the minister and his staff. I don't care how crass he is in his remarks about what he would like to see done with seals, and I don't care how he would like to have them harvested, because I don't feel much differently, to be honest with you. I would like to see seals and every other species harvested whereby we would be able to use it in a way that would provide some benefit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker? I think the agreement was that it would be ten minutes if we wanted to interchange, but we could go on for thirty minutes, and then our time would be up.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: I think that was the agreement. Maybe if I could then I will go my full thirty minutes now and use up my time, because I am making a good speech here and I am sure I have a lot of people's attention, Mr. Speaker. I am sure of that. The Minister of Justice is listening, I am sure he is, because it affects his district as well. I am sure his thoughts and opinions are not far from mine, or from the ones that have been expressed by other people in this House.

Mr. Speaker, something has to be done, and it has to be done soon. When you talk to salmon fishermen down on the Labrador coast where they are still allowed to catch Atlantic salmon commercially, when you talk to those people down there and they tell you that - I think there are about 200 salmon licence holders left in Labrador, if I recall correctly - they want an opportunity to have their licence bought back, they want an opportunity to be able to sell their licence, because they can't compete with the predators of salmon, then you know there is something wrong.

This was a very lucrative fishery. I suppose as it becomes scarcer, and as the need becomes greater, supply and demand, today it is probably a much richer commodity, a much more sought after commodity, than it ever was before. When you have fishermen calling you saying: I'm now ready to sell back my licence because I can't compete with the seals for salmon, then you know there is a major problem. When you have a fisherman calling you saying: Three out of every five salmon I caught last year were damaged by seals, there is something wrong. It should tell us a big story.

Because if we are going to allow the status quo to take place, then not only will we not have a cod fishery close to where it was, but we won't have a salmon fishery or a caplin fishery or any fishery. Something has to be done, and it has to be done soon. If we are going to expect our people to only fish certain types of gear, and if we are going to expect our people to abide by the rules and regulations put forward by the federal government for conservation reasons, scientific information that is brought forward, then the scientists and the conservationists have to start listening to the common person as well, the fishermen.

We can talk about water temperatures, we can talk about the eco-system all we want, and we can turn our back on the problem. Because I feel up until now that we have turned our back on it. I feel we have spend too much time counting fish and not dealing with the problem. Until we deal with the overpopulation, the explosion, of seals then we will never get back in the fishing boat and allow our communities to survive as they have in the past.

I think we can. I don't think we will ever see the numbers back in the fish plants any more, I don't think we will ever see the numbers out in the fishing boats any more, but hopefully when we see a program brought down by Ottawa, we will allow those people to be able to go on with another phase of their lives and move out of that industry, make a transition with some form of dignity. Hopefully we will. The people who are left behind to take part in that industry, if we do it right, and the onus is on each and every one of us - I think attitudes have changed out there as well which I will get to in a minute - I think the onus is on each and every one of us to speak out loudly and support the minister in his travels and in his pilgrimage in fighting for this cause, to deal with the overpopulation of seals around our coast. It has to be done -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) across the country or what?

MR. EFFORD: Boy, everywhere you go (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I agree, and it should be. It has to be done, Mr. Speaker. I think we operate in fear of what IFAW might be doing, and I do not know if we should do that anymore. I think the time has come and I think we can put our case forward now, and we have the people who can carry the message, whereby we can carry our own message across this country and across this globe if we have to, in order to do something with the overpopulation of seals.

You know, leading up to that, I think there are some little things we can do ourselves. I think we have to try to solve the problems when it comes to personal fishing licences, whereby people are allowed to go out and take six seals but right now they are not allowed to sell the pelts, and I think of the by-catch and other things.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about big numbers. I see no reason why those people cannot allow somebody else - and I am sure it is being done, I would hope it is being done - allow somebody else to sell their pelts for them. I see nothing wrong with that and I see no reason why they cannot sell them themselves, because sealing can be a very viable operation, a very viable way of supporting families. It comes at a time when people are getting geared up to take part in other fisheries. It gives them an income at a time of the year, Mr. Speaker, when they ordinarily would find themselves on Employment Insurance, and at a time of the year when they can certainly use the extra income in order to supplement either their EI or provide them with an opportunity to buy gear to get geared up for other fisheries. So, Mr. Speaker, that is one area where we have to make sure that we pay particular attention.

I understand we can talk for ten minutes at a time. Mr. Speaker, I have a message here that somebody wants to see me outside.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I have a message here that somebody wants to see me outside. I have twenty minutes or something used up already, and I cannot take a chance on not attending to this message. So, Mr. Speaker, what I will do is, I will now allow somebody else to speak

MR. TULK: Let me say this (inaudible) withdraw leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: You cannot withdraw leave, I have half-an-hour.

MR. TULK: Why?

MR. FITZGERALD: I have half-an-hour.

MR. TULK: Yes, well withdraw leave, you have to stop now (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: So I will submit to one of my colleagues and come back and take up this speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well that is true but that is all a part of it, I say to the Minister of Justice. As I said before, this is the reason why we are here. If we are going to play a political game, this is where we play it, not when we have the minister surrounded by his staff, not when we have the minister out in his district. We play it right here in this House. This is where I believe politics should be played, not anywhere else.

When the Minister of Health and Community Services comes down to my district, she will not see politics played; she will not see politics played. She will be allowed to have people from the surrounding areas there to voice their concerns and she will voice her answers, and that is the way it should be. I do not think it is the time to belittle anybody or to bring forward points that should be discussed here in this House.

So I will pass on to one of my colleagues and I will pick up again. How much time do I have left?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has spoken for eighteen minutes, fifty-four point two seconds.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to rise this morning to participate in the debate but I more particularly wanted to talk about human resources. I was unable last evening to participate in the part of the Budget debate that talked about the Social Services Estimates Committee report and how that is related to the Department of Education and these matters.

Particularly this morning I wanted to speak about the Youth Internship Programs and what that means for the education of our children in the Province. Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to be at O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl where the school had an appreciation breakfast for the businesses in the region that are partners with O'Donel High School in the provision of two cooperative education programs, the Business Work Study Program and the Youth Internship Programs in Marine Affairs.

About two weeks ago the Member for St. John's West asked a series of questions relative to the continued funding for the Youth Internship Programs. I followed up a few days later with some questions to the Minister of Education. As far as the provincial government would be concerned, this particular matter affects the Ministers of Human Resources and Employment and Education and their respective responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record some of the comments that were made this morning by some people at the appreciation breakfast. I want to note as well that the Avalon East School Board has twenty-two Cooperative Education Programs in place. They operate in fourteen high schools in the Avalon East region. There are 606 students who are participating in the Youth Internship and Cooperative Education Programs. I should note as well that the Avalon East School Board has a data base of 1,000 employers who are active participants with the Avalon East School Board in the Cooperative Education Program.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to the House's attention again how important this particular aspect of education is to the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was around 1990 that Human Resources Development Canada initiated this particular program. The Province came into the program with the full knowledge that the federal participants would be getting out of the program in three years. The Province has had time to look at the continued funding.

I want to say, first of all, that I am surprised the Ministers of Human Resources and Employment and Education have not, to date, given the school boards and the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador the commitment that this program can continue. Because they have had knowledge of the fact that the federal government would be getting out of the program right from day one. However, they also knew and they gave a commitment - and I talked to Human Resources Development Canada about this and they knew - that the program would be continued and methodologies would be found to continue the program after Human Resources Development Canada got out of it. However, that program is now in jeopardy. I wanted this morning to bring to the attention of the House how important it is in the education of our young people that we find ways to continue this particular program.

I wanted to, first of all, read into the record what the program is all about. A Cooperative Education Program consists of a high school credit, courses that combine classroom instruction in the school with practical on-the-job training. It is a partnership of students, teachers, employers and employees. There are, as I said, two different parts of the program. There is the Business Work Study Program and there is the Youth Internship Program.

Mr. Speaker, the business program involves student placements in many different types of private enterprise and public sector administration offices. The employers in this region have been very cooperative and it involves placement primarily in scientific, engineering, computer science, technical enterprises, and public agencies. Mr. Speaker, there have been placements as well in businesses involved in tourism, recreation sectors and with municipalities. Mr. Speaker, altogether in this region there are 1,000 employers who are on the database and who are ready to continue their participation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, as well, that the employers have the goal that they want to participate with the school boards, with the parents and with the Department of Education to help prepare Newfoundland students today for the global challenges of tomorrow. That is the theme, that is the approach and that is the commitment that the schools in this Province have towards our young people.

Mr. Speaker, the Cooperative Education Program is designed to promote closer association between students, and working adults are willing to share their knowledge. There are many benefits, I should say, to the Cooperative Education Program. The employers benefit because it develops for the employers a workforce of young people who have skills and on the job experience. While we know that the on the job experience these young people have may not seem significant to some members of the government, for these young people it certainly is a very worthwhile experience. Mr. Speaker, it encourages students to have a positive attitude towards productivity in the workplace.

An employer said to me this morning that it enables employers to participate directly in the education of students and to keep educators informed of their requirements with respect to future employees. So the employers, the 1,000 who are registered with the Avalon East Board in their database, are enthusiastically endorsing the cooperative education model. For the community at large, there are benefits to this particular program as well, because it promotes for the young people an awareness of youth job opportunities. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, many of the people who are in the database or with the Avalon East School Board, the 1,000 of these firms, you will find many of them have agreed and have applied to Human Resources Development Canada to get funding for job placements for the summer.

So the database is already there, and because they have had these young people working with them in a cooperative education model, we have employers who have been identified as willing to accept young people into their job sites and that is important. We also have young people out there today who are looking for jobs. The idea of the student placement program is that we can match those two together.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this particular program, The Cooperative Education Youth Internship Program, if it were not designed, if it were not there, we would be out trying to design it. We would be out saying: How can we make this thing happen? How can we get 1,000 employers in the greater St. John's Avalon Region to say: We want to cooperate with the educational system? We have been trying to find ways to do that. We have been saying to the school system: How can you work with the community to try to identify in young people the kind of career skills and knowledge that they would like to have information about and have some experience in? So we have been trying to devise it. Well this program is already devised. It is there. So we want to say to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and say to the Minister of Education, that we cannot let this particular program be sacrificed. It is working too well.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I should point out, as well, that the graduation requirements in various parts of Canada are changing so that this kind of community involvement will be an essential feature of the graduation requirements from the high school system. For example, to graduate from a high school in Ontario, in 1999, you will have to have forty hours of community service. In other words, you can have all the academics and you can have straight As in Ontario, but starting in 1999 you have to have forty hours of community service working with an employer or working with a community agency in order to graduate.

In Alberta starting in 1999, you will have to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: In Alberta in 1999 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the member proceeds, I would like to welcome some visitors. On behalf of the all members of the House of Assembly, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, forty-two Grade V students from St. Peter's Elementary School in Upper Island Cove, in the district of Port de Grave. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Norman Mugford, Ms. Pauline Dyke and Ms. Judy Stone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I was indicating the desirable features of the cooperative education model, and I was saying that we have this model already existing in Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, other Provinces in Canada are looking at the Newfoundland experience for cooperative education, and they are asking us for information about it.

I talked to the Avalon East School Board and they tell me they are getting inquiries from all over Canada to give them information about how the Avalon East School Board is working with the community to try to find placement for students, to try to find educational opportunities for young people, and to try to make sure the community is involved in the process of education.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying a few moments ago, that in 1999 in Ontario, to graduate from high school, you will need to have forty hours of community service. In Alberta, in 1999, you will have to have thirty hours of community service in order to be able to graduate from high school. This is the direction in which this country is moving.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, where we have an excellent program now developed between Human Resources Canada and the Department of Education and the various school boards, we must make every effort to make sure that we do not let it slip through our fingers. We have to make sure that this particular program is able to be fostered and encouraged. I know that the government is looking at ways to continue this program.

My point this morning is not to be overly critical. It is to say to them: This is something that is working. Let us make sure that we give the encouragement to the school boards and to the community agencies, the employers, to say to them: This is the way we want to go.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to share with members, if I could, the comments made earlier this morning at the appreciation breakfast at O'Donel of the student representative who spoke to the employers who were there. There were about two pages of employers listed and about thirty or forty of them were present this morning.

I want to share with the members of the House the comments made by the student representative, a young Level III student by the name of Dawn Cleary. I am quoting from her comments this morning. She was good enough to give me her notes. I want to share with members what the students are saying about it. She wrote: I think this is the most important thing I have gained from this program, and that is realizing what I want to do in university. If I had not gone through the program, I would have gone through university following a program of studies which, at the end, I would have realized was not what I wanted to do.

Mr. Speaker, she also said: I have also been introduced to new ideas about what I can do in the future, and what I obviously enjoy doing in life, as a result of my placement. She mentions the name of the firm she was placed at. Mr. Speaker, she was placed at Daybreak Parent Children's Centre.

Mr. Speaker, she said: I have also learned things about the workplace, how to deal with conflicting personalities in a mature professional manner and how long a nine to five day is compared to a day in the life of high school. When making the right choices in following your dreams, we can have a career that is rewarding and confidence building.

Mr. Speaker, these young people who spoke this morning, and all of them who came forward and presented their co-operative employers with appreciation certificates, came out in great numbers at 7:15 in the morning. The cafeteria at O'Donel High School this morning was filled with employers and students who were there to say thank you. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts that have been made by O'Donel High School and the other thirteen high schools in the Avalon East system which are participating in the Co-operative Education Program.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make note, as well, on this particular matter, that we as a Province should be, today, aggressively pursuing with the HRDC ways to continue this kind of co-operative approach, because this is so important across this Province that, as I said before, if it did not exist we would be out there trying to create it. When you can have, as I said earlier in my commentary, 1,000 employers in a database, it is phenomenal that all of these employers have said: Yes, we want to be partners with the school system.

Mr. Speaker, I noted a couple of days ago that the Minister of Education, in his commentary in the House, in fact in his ministerial statement, announcing the Third National Forum on Education. He said that the theme this year would be on Education and Life Transitions, and the focus would be on a school system including pre-school, school to work and work to school and the changing labour market environment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is a bunch of the leading educators from all across Canada, in here in this Province, in this city, yesterday, today and tomorrow, talking about making transitions from work to school and school to work, building the community relationship between education and the need for the community to be involved. Here we can tell them today that this particular transition program we have in this Province called Co-operative Education, the Youth Internship Program is a working model for the rest of Canada. We just simply have to say to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment in this Province and the Minister of Education: Let us make sure that we do not lose this kind of initiative. Let us make sure that we continue the funding that is necessary to promote it.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I wrote the various high schools in my district on this very matter. I wanted them to know that we view with some concern the fact that the federal government is withdrawing its financial support. The reason why they are withdrawing it, they say, is that their job is to create employment, and at the end of the funded program they have not been able to identify how many jobs have been created. They argue that the Department of Education in the Province should now, after three years, have found the resources to be able to continue the program.

Mr. Speaker, we view with some concern the change in the federal public policy on this issue and the potential impacts these changes will have on the education system's ability to offer meaningful programs that will facilitate a smooth transition from high school to future work or other post-secondary learning institutions. We view with concern what is happening here because many of our young people have gained valuable, life-long, learning experiences because of this particular program.

We are concerned that if it is not going to be funded by the federal government, the Province, through its various departments, including primarily the Department of Human Resources and Employment and the Department of Education, have not yet resolved or found the ways and means to fund the program in the future. Mr. Speaker, we also say that we view with concern, frustration and dismay, another example of the federal government's all too common practice of introducing programs, and then when they are going for two or three years they simply drop out of them. What happens is that the federal government introduces this kind of program, they go through the usual flurry of public relations and the handshaking and the press releases, and all of the PR that goes with that, and then when the program gets up and working, they suddenly say: We are not going to fund it any more. That causes the Province, the school boards, the students, the employers, a great deal of frustration.

Schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and our ten school boards believe the federal government has participated in developing a very good program. It was a collaborative approach between the school boards and the Province and the federal government. We believe it was very successful. We are saying to the government today, we should be finding a means to continue this very viable youth internship program that provides hands-on learning opportunities which, in the implementation process, has helped develop in our students lifelong learning experiences.

I want as well this morning to say to the provincial government that the time has come for the Province to examine this program, to contact the school boards, and to make sure we do find the ways and means to successfully continue what has become a very successful learning experience for the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With these comments I again want to thank the employers, I want to thank a few of the 1,000 employers registered in this area. I want to say it was a great experience this morning, as I did last year and the year before, to participate in the appreciation program that was put on by O'Donel High School, and to say that while O'Donel is just an example of all the other schools in the region, and in fact in the Province, this is a very successful program and we should be doing all we can to make sure it continues.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I do believe that one of my colleagues is now anxious to get up and continue the debate.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will carry on. I understand I have some time left before I use up my half an hour, another eighteen minutes. I will carry on from where I left off.

Just continuing on, before I finish up, to do with the seal industry, or the seal hunt, I say to the minister that maybe this year we should look at delaying the opening of the seal hunt in the Province by a couple of weeks. In my conversation with some of the people involved in the industry, I am told that this year it opened too early. Some of the pelts that were taken are not of the quality that they should have been, because the seals were going through a stage where we would know them as ragged-jackets. That in itself doesn't allow the pelt to be as good a commercial value as it would be when it gets into the beater stage, I say to the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, who nods his head over there. I am sure he knows full well what I am talking about.

If we delayed the hunt for a couple of weeks, that would also give the people from the Speaker's district and from my own district, in that particular area, a chance to be able to take part in that particular hunt and not find themselves like they were this year, when it was the ideal time for hunting, the seals had come close to shore in those particular regions, but because the hunt had opened so early, and because those ragged-jackets had been taken, then those people were left unable to be able to go out and take part in that hunt and make a few badly needed dollars.

In fact, one gentleman called me and was very upset that he had gone out that day - not knowing what quota was left or what quota had been taken - and bought a new gun, and he had bought forty-five gallons of gasoline for his boat. He was really looking forward to being able to go out and make a few extra dollars in order to get geared up and take part in the supplementary crab quota that he was expecting. I think he was a permit holder in one of the smaller boats under thirty-four, eleven. He was very upset when he called me. When he got home that day with his forty-five gallon drum of fuel, and just after buying his new gun, he found out that the quota had been taken and he was denied the opportunity to take part.

When you hear both sides of the story - you hear a processor saying that the seal hunt had opened too early, and then you hear a fisherman saying that if we only had another couple of weeks we would have really done well, and here are the expenses that I incurred - then we should try to get both of this together and look at when the hunt should be open. The greater issue, I suppose, is how many seals should be allowed to be taken.

The seal industry has offered a great opportunity in my district. I only wish people could have driven by the Mifflin fish plant there, which was once a salt fish operation. I only wish people could have driven by there when the seal hunt was on the go, when it reached its peak, to see the activity right there in that particular plant. You know full well, Mr. Speaker; it is a district that you represented. It is an area which you represented.

There was never - I should not say never, but probably in your memory there was never - a big crowd that worked there; not in your memory but in your term as being the Member of the House of Assembly. Because by that time the salt fish industry had pretty well levelled out - not levelled out, but almost disappeared - and for the most part there were only ten or twelve people working in that particular operation at that time.

I understand in other years, in former years, there were large numbers of people worked there. In my memory of it, being a member, there was nobody there. You would drive by the plant and see the door open, and all that told you was that somebody from across the street, from S. W. Mifflin's, was probably in there to take out a sheet of plywood, or a gallon of paint to sell, because they were using it as storage, and that was the only thing that was happening there.

The wharf was getting dilapidated, the building was probably not being attended; well, I am sure it was not being attended to the way that it should. Then, all of a sudden, this opportunity appeared and we had a reputable, good Newfoundland company go down to Catalina, work out a deal with S. W. Mifflin, bought the building, repaired the wharf, spent over $2 million on that facility - over $2 million - and at its peak this summer there were 140 people - or, as the Minister of Justice would say, 140 souls - working there. There were 140 souls working at that fish plant.

I would drive up through there in the nighttime, ten or eleven o'clock, and there would be tractor trailers on the wharf, tractor trailers by the road. You had to slow down because the road was all dug up in order to get proper drainage, in order to get the sewer that they needed over there, the sewer lines, the water lines. The boats were tied up at the wharf, forklifts going and coming. What a busy place, Mr. Speaker.

You go into the post office right across the street and I think there was one person who complained about the smell, who said something about the smell. I was very quick to point out that if we are going to get caught up in industries that only smell good, or if we are going to get caught up in only allowing certain industries in our town because we can wear certain types of clothes or we do not have to get dirty, then I fear that our rural way of life in most of those communities is going to disappear very, very, quickly.

I had to bring up this point when this individual brought it up about the smell there. I remember being on a trip down in the United States. The Member for Bellevue and the Speaker were with me, and we went to visit a relative in New Jersey. We leased a car on our day off and went up and visited a relative of the Speaker in New Jersey. We went into this restaurant there and the smell was enough to knock you backwards. We came into this community - I forget the name of the community - but what a stink. That's what it was; it was not a smell, it was a stink! It was terrible! Put up the window, put up the window! Oh, man, we can't stop here! So we were hungry and decided that we were going to go into the restaurant and get something to eat there, as bad as the smell was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was this?

MR. FITZGERALD: It was a community in New Jersey. The Speaker might know the name of the community, I can't recall, but I never smelled anything as bad. I smelled the meal plant, I say to the minister, working in a fish plant all my life. I have smelled the meal plant. It was worse than the meal plant. What a hum coming from this community!

We went into the restaurant there - maybe the Speaker might know the name of the community; he might be able to inform us - and nobody apologized for the smell. Nobody said that you picked a bad day. Nobody said that you picked a bad day to visit. Nobody said that you should have gone somewhere else, or when the sun is out it really smells. I said to the girl at the restaurant: What is it that I smell? She said: We make compost here. We make and we dry and we sell compost. She talked about the people working there. Nobody mentioned the smell other than us driving in.

This is something that here in Newfoundland it seems we always talk about - or in the past we have - how bad things are rather than the benefits derived from it. The Speaker knows what I am talking about. I never smelled anything like it in my life, and this is the kind of thing that we have to accept as well. There is no reason, because we can't wear a suit of clothes to work or we can't go to work and come home without having a smell of something on us, that it is bad because it is not. Fish sometimes can smell pretty bad, I say to members opposite, and most people know what I am talking about there as well.

I remember being down in Gaultois, Mr. Speaker. I spent four winters in Gaultois. If anybody knows anything about Gaultois, you go in there, the fish plant is down on the wharf and the meal plant is on the wharf. If you don't pass by the government wharf to get to the opposite side of Gaultois, you go up around the mountain, up around the hill, and when you are going around the hill you are about level with the stack of the meal plant. I can guarantee you, if you want a good smell that is the place to get it; but I did not hear anybody down in Gaultois complaining about the smell. The women would go out and put their clothes on the line and the steam from the meal plant would blow back over the clothesline. Nobody complained, Mr. Speaker. Because to me, as I said to them, it is the smell of prosperity when you smell that.

The farmers out in my district, at a certain time of the year - now in fact - are out spreading the manure on the fields. The (inaudible), I say to the Member for Terra Nova, are out there. One fellow who has a hennery is moving his hens manure to the fields. The other fellow who has a dairy farm is moving the dairy manure to the fields, and he is just one. There are four or five dairy farms there. Look out when you will and they are going up and down the road and there is a little piece falling off here and a little piece somewhere else. So what?

Mr. Speaker, I remember being the Mayor of Musgravetown and somebody called me and said: Boy, what are you going to do with this stink that is around here today? What are you going to do about it? To me, that is the smell of prosperity. That tells me that there is a farmer getting ready for next year. He is not putting that manure on his fields for today. That is for the future, to make sure he has a good field and he will have another crop to cut. That tells me that farmer is going to be in business next year because he is preparing for it.

MR. LUSH: Remember the year we had the fly infestation down there?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I remember that year, I say to the member. I was not the member then but the Member for Terra Nova was. That was a situation I think -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, in fact I was employed with the Assistant Deputy Speaker at that time. He and I worked with Nickerson's together at the Charleston fish plant. I think one of the trucking companies adhered to the wish of a farmer, if I recall correctly, and instead of taking his offal up to one of the meal plants he decided he was going to dump it on his farm. He would spread it, and that would provide the fertilizer for the grass to grow. We had an infestation of flies. It wasn't a very good smell. Here again, I say to the member, that is no reflection on what people did for a living, no reflection on the industry.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a reflection of somebody doing something outside of the rules and regulations of the Department of Environment and Labour, because it was cleaned up very quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. member that his time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am just doing something here (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I understand that by leave, and I don't want to take somebody's place here, and if I have I will sit down and not even speak, but I understand in talking to the Opposition House Leader that in order to get bills on the Order Paper I would do Notices of Motion on five bills, on behalf of the hon. -

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed? Do we have an agreement that we revert to Notices of Motion?

MR. TULK: I don't want to take somebody else's place on this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: On behalf of the hon. the Minister of Justice I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." That is the Attorney General amendments, otherwise known as to the hon. gentleman.

On behalf of the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."

On behalf of the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Child Care Services In The Province."

On behalf of the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act."

On behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruise Ship Authority."

All (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: We will resume Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: That is another $100,000 for you, Wally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: You got your $1 million, Jack. See, I said it and there wasn't one person picked up on it, Jack.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few brief remarks today. I thought my hon. critic across the way would have asked me some questions during Question Period about the statement I heard this morning on CBC I didn't know anything about. I want to make some comments about that. It is related to the overall workings of the government, and I think it would fit in with regards to Concurrence and the Estimates and so on.

I turned on the radio this morning to listen to CBC news. I was up too early to get any news from the local CBC radio, because I get up before they sign on. Ten minutes to 6:00 every morning they play the Ode to Newfoundland and O Canada and that sort of stuff, but I even miss that now because I am up long before that. I did have a chance at 8:00 a.m. to turn the news on, and one of the items on the news had to do with the Fire Commissioner's reports from Come by Chance.

I want to just make this comment. The reports are not finished, are not finalized. I say this to my hon. colleague across the way, honestly. CBC called yesterday and asked for an interview with me to ask me questions on it, and basically we told them: No, there is an interim report in from the Fire Commissioner's office that I have over at my office, but it is not the final report. The life safety audit is not in, so as far as I am concerned, as far as my department is concerned, as far as the team that is working on Come by Chance is concerned, none of those reports are in yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I will say to the hon. member the answer is yes. I made the comment in the House that I would make all of this public as soon as I got it. I am saying to the hon. member to be decent with me and give me a few days, at least, for my people to look at it, give me a few days for the Minister of Justice to look at, then I will make it public. That was the comment I made in the House and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes, that is right. There was a mistake. One of my employees jumped the gun and made a comment about it. Basically the gentleman didn't really understand or didn't know. If he had told CBC it was an interim report it may have been different. I asked him this morning and he said he did say it was an interim report. Of course, CBC has a habit of developing stories out of things like that and basically misleading not only the public but people like you and me. I have no problem saying that in the House because it happens quite often.

Mr. Speaker, the investigation of the March 25 fire explosion at Come-By-Chance is completed. The investigation is completed. Reports are now being compiled. It is anticipated that these reports will be finished up in the next couple of weeks. Beyond that, there is really no need of me making any other comment on the investigation.

The life safety audit that is being conducted by the Fire Commissioner will all be put together, and the vessel inspectors and Occupational Health and Safety, along with Brown and Root and A.D. Tupper & Associates - that will be done as soon as possible and we will put that together. I am hoping, with all that said, that there is no point in releasing one report at a time. We will release them all the one time when they come in. I promise you I will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that some of the capital works has been announced and some of the letters have gone out. Some of you, on both sides of the House, have received some commitments from government as it relates to capital works. I know the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis has received his letters and has his funding approved. I know the hon. Member for Ferryland has spoken to me about some of his stuff, and I do not know if all of that has been approved yet or not, but we are working on that. Your hon. Leader asked me about some capital works yesterday and I told him about that, and the Opposition.

I think most of the ones on this side of the House and on that side, who have not heard - we are working on this deal of cash flow that the hon. Member for Conception Bay South has been working with me on for a long time. We should have some idea whether or not we are going to proceed along those lines of cash flowing large projects in the Province, hopefully within two weeks. The paper is done. My colleague from Justice has the paper. We are not sure, we still have some investigation to do in regards to financing. When we are happy with that, and clear with that, then we will make some announcements.

Mr. Speaker, that is about all I need to say. I just wanted to grab a few moments to make those comments, and I thank you very much for your attention.

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

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

I do believe I have about eight or nine minutes left.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has eight minutes left.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to continue to talk about the programs that I was addressing before, the Cooperative Education Program and the Youth Internship Programs.

Since I was speaking about a half hour ago, I received a package from the Avalon East School Board. They have sent me some information relative to their position on this particular program. It follows from dialogue I had earlier today with the school board representatives.

I want to say to hon. members how important this program is, and how it is so crucial that we become more fully aware, as members of the House of Assembly, of the role that cooperative education has in our school system.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the information I received from the school board speaks of the implications of Human Resources Development Canada's withdrawing from the K to XII school system and from the Cooperative Educational Program.

Mr. Speaker, I did note before that some of those programs are now in danger of being discontinued. As a matter of fact, six quality programs are in danger of being discontinued in the Avalon East School Board System, and that has serious implications for the quality of programming and for the quality of education.

We note that fourteen of the Avalon East high schools are involved in the Co-op Youth Internship Program and over 600 students were registered in that Program in the 1997-1998 school year. Twenty-two of the twenty eight programs in the school system presently exist with no federal support whatsoever. In other words, they are taken teachers out of their regular allocation to support the program.

There are six Youth Internship Programs that have received only one year of federal funding and these programs exist as follows: The Career Exploratory Program at Beaconsfield High School; the Career Pathways Program at Brother Rice; the Future Pathways Program at Booth Memorial; the Desktop Publishing Program at Bishop's; the Marine Affairs Program at O'Donel High School; and the Petro Chemical Promise Program at Mount Pearl Senior High School. Mr. Speaker, these are the programs that are in danger of collapsing unless the Minister of Human Resources and Employment in this Province and the Minister of Education can either work co-operatively on their own or work in conjunction with their federal partners to find ways to continue the funding.

Mr. Speaker, it takes about three or four years before these programs are able to stand on their own. What is happening here is that these programs are now in their first-year stage and there is a real danger that they will not be able to be continued unless new funding sources are found. Without the federal and provincial support of these programs, these six are now in jeopardy. Some of the schools have already indicated that they will have no choice but to cancel their programs.

As I said earlier, we have 1,000 employers in this area who are participants, and if we did not have this program available to our students we would be trying to find ways and means of making it happen.

I should note, as well, that seven innovative funding proposals that would have expanded Youth Internships to other students have been turned down because we simply have not got an agreement reached between the Province and the federal government.

Also, there are six high schools - I said there were fourteen high schools involved in the program. There are twenty high schools in the Avalon East system. The other six high schools which are not already involved in the Cooperative Education Youth Internship Program have expressed interest in becoming involved.

For example, the high school in Trepassey is not now part of this Youth Internship Cooperative Education Program, but the high school in Trepassey wants to be involved in this program and the school board is trying to find ways and means of making it happen. The Avalon East School Board has the philosophy that all of their high schools should have at least one of those programs. The real problem here is that if the extra funding is not found some of these programs will cease to exist as of June 30, 1998.

Some of the programs have been nationally recognized. Some of you may have seen on the news, the tremendous credit given to Bishop's College and to the administrator there. We want to say congratulations to those schools. When we have school systems from across Canada coming to Newfoundland to say, how are you doing this, why is it working, how is it working, we should be so proud of it because we have something to give back to the rest of Canada. In this Cooperative Education Youth Internship Program, we are leading many of the other provinces, not all of them, but we are leading a good many of them. So we should be saying to the rest of Canada: Come here and see what we have. This is why, with the leading educators in town today, we need to be saying to them, that we are pleased to see them here but we do not have to listen to all they say. It is a sharing exercise and we have something that we can tell them about the school to work transition as well.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to note again, in the information given to me by the Avalon East School Board in the last fifteen minutes, it says: Funding for the Educational Partnership Facilitator will end as of June 30, and our work in this area, recognized nationally, would be negatively impacted as a result of less resources being allocated to support the maintenance and further enhancement of existing programs. I note, Mr. Speaker, the school board wants to have at least one of those programs in every school. The school board, as well, notes that the lack of funding or the discontinuance of funding will have implications for addressing real school improvement needs.

For example, the Teacher Internship Curriculum Development Program, I just want to comment on that. In the Avalon East system, we now have a new program, first in the Province and one of the first in the country. It is called, the Teacher Internship Curriculum and Development Program. That's a program whereby teachers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Just by leave to clue up.

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

MR. BARRETT: No leave.

MR. H. HODDER: I note that the Member for Bellevue refuses me leave to continue a dialogue on education in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Today I rise in my place to say a few words on the Budget once again. With respect to the Estimates Committee Meetings, that is what we are discussing today.

MR. FUREY: Were you there?

MR. J. BYRNE: I attended a number of meetings, Mr. Speaker, and I can guarantee you I was there, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I was there and every minister will confirm for you that when I was there the person who asked the most questions was the Member for Cape St. Francis; there is no doubt about that. I asked many, many detailed questions on the budgets. Most definitely, I asked questions in the Estimate Committee Meetings.

Some of the ministers, I must say, are well informed on their departments when you ask them questions. There were a few of the ministers who had to refer to their staff, get some information and what have you. But a couple of the ministers, I must say, with respect to knowing what was going on in their departments, were well informed. I did not necessarily agree with what was going on in their departments, but they were well informed and they could answer the questions; not necessarily the answer that I would want to receive or I thought should be given, but they answered the questions anyway.

Now, with respect to the Budget - which member was up the other day? I think it was the Member for Topsail. He was making some comments, Mr. Speaker. I referred to him the other day when I was speaking and I didn't get a chance to finish my comments on the comments that the Member for Topsail was making.

Anyway, he talked about the taxes being reduced in the Budget. Mr. Speaker, that never happened. Taxes were not reduced in this Budget. He talked about there being no increases in taxes, but there were, in my estimation, a number of tax increases in the Budget, although hidden very well, Mr. Speaker. They were hidden.

Where is the information you promised me today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did I promise you information?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, you did. Remember now; think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I can't say it publicly. Now, he has thought on it; give you time to work on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know. I know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Topsail was making some comments with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I can't remember his exact comments, but I want to make a comment on that because the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was asked a question with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing last week and about the situation with an individual being hired to look at what was going on with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, over the past few years we know that there have been a number of people let go from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing; people who really didn't want to leave, but they were forced to leave basically, because they did not know what was going to happen to their pensions. The same thing has come around each year, in January or February, over the past few years, people being more less - there is something just fed out there, Mr. Speaker, to the people in the civil service and different Crown corporations. They are basically wondering if they should stay or if they should go.

It happened with the teachers there last year actually, Mr. Speaker, and the year before and the year before that; there being some subtle information put out that something might happen to their pensions and what have you. I know of a specific individual with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing who felt he had no choice but to go, wanted to stay, but he was afraid of what might happen to his pension. Now we have a situation where government is looking at the overall situation with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador housing. What should happen to it in the future? Should it stay as it is? Should the status quo remain, Mr. Speaker, or should it collapse, in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing?

That is the feedback we are getting, that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will not exist in the future, that it will be collapsed into Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker, especially in light of the fact that the Premier and the Minister of Finance have stated that the lay-offs in the civil service are over with, finished, caput: What is going to happen to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? Are we going to see more jobs gone, I say to the Government House Leader? Are there more jobs going out the window, Mr. Speaker, and more people going to have to leave this Province because they lost a job, Mr. Speaker?

Actually, in the civil service over the past few years, I was told that there was a husband and wife, a couple, that worked in government who were notified on the same day that there jobs were gone. Mr. Speaker, that is pretty cruel stuff! That is pretty cruel stuff! And I am not sure if they are in the Province today or not. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is the type of thing the Member for Topsail was talking about.

He also talked about youth employment, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to have to do something for youth employment. We all know that is a major concern. The Opposition Leader here has brought that up in this House on a number of occasions. What are we going to do for the young people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, in my district, I can go down through the communities down there, Logy Bay, Middle Cove, Torbay, Flatrock, Pouch Cove, Bauline; young people are leaving in droves. We are educating them, Mr. Speaker, and they are going. We have to find ways to keep them here. I think we have to find ways to keep them here.

I just had an interesting conversation with a member on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We were talking about the Federal Government.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not possible.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it was pretty interesting, I have to say. We were talking about what is going on in the Federal Government. I spoke, just in passing, to the Minister of Fisheries this morning. He was up yesterday speaking about the situation with respect to the seals in this Province, Mr. Speaker. He is making some good legitimate points. We have to get it sunk into somebody's head in Ottawa, if it is the civil servants or if it is the politicians, that something needs to be done. If we are to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, something has to be done with that problem.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that the fishery was to sustain this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for almost 500 years, and we know the impact that the seal are having. I have to say that the minister is on to something here and I agree with the comments that he was making, but it has to be done, of course, in a controlled fashion. We have to convince the right people to do what needs to be done. It may sound cruel to some people, Mr. Speaker, but in reality he is right in what he is saying. It has to be addressed and it has to addressed soon.

When I heard (inaudible) speak last night, something crossed my mind: What is going on here? We know the impact that it is having on rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. Is there some plan in Ottawa to force people out of this Province? If we do not do something with the sealing problem, Mr. Speaker - we know the impact that it is having on the fishery, we know the impact having no fishery is having on rural Newfoundland. People have to leave the Province to look for jobs to maintain their families. So it is a chain reaction right on through, and we have to address it.

Is there a plan in Ottawa to get people out of this Province, Mr. Speaker? I have to wonder. When you couple that with the changes to the EI program that were brought in a couple of years ago - now it is harder to get on the EI program and each time you get on it, Mr. Speaker, it is cut back. You get less and less each time you go on the EI program. What they are trying to do from what I hear now, Mr. Speaker, is they are trying to get it so that, if you work in a Province, you can only draw EI in the Province that you work in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the impact that would have on Newfoundland and rural Newfoundland, where we have Newfoundlanders leaving and going to another Province, getting work for as long as they have to, to feed their families, then coming back. It is something that has been happening over the years and will continue to happen. If that policy is brought in, that will force more people out of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. So if you couple that with the inaction, or the non-action, with respect to the sealing problems, look at the EI and what they are trying to do to with the changes there, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that there has got to be some plan afoot to get the population of Newfoundland decreased, big time. It is a resettlement program, Mr. Speaker, from Ottawa.

Now, I would imagine if you want to sit down and size up all the policies, you probably could back this up even further. But the two of them are enough for me, Mr. Speaker, to say that Ottawa is not doing their part for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to say also, Mr. Speaker, that the government of today and the previous administration, I do not think are speaking up for Newfoundland and Labrador like they should. I think they are accepting too much from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the Premier was a former member of the Cabinet that brought these changes to the EI program and put them in place. I don't know if he supported them or not but he was certainly a member of Cabinet when those were done, and he was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, by the way. Our current provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture now is trying to do something with respect to that problem and the Premier should have some clout in Ottawa. That is what he campaigned on in the last election, that he could open doors in Ottawa, but he is not opening the doors to resolve the problem of the seal fishery in this Province. He does not want to use up all his IOUs yet, Mr. Speaker.

The member I was speaking to on the other side told me something which I found very curious, and this was about the lump roe and the fishery. I don't profess to be an expert in the fishery by any stretch of the imagination, let me tell you that, but we have a situation where an individual he was speaking to, he was telling me, came in to dock last year some time with a load of lump roe. I said yes, what about the fish? Do they take the fish and just get the roe out of them or do they kill the fish? They kill the fish, take the lump roe, and then just dispose of the fish. Apparently this is pretty lucrative, this process or this lump roe fishery, but I have to say: Are we going down the same path that we did before?

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when I was a young fellow growing up and going down to get a fish. It was not that long ago either when I was growing up and going down to the beach and getting a fish. The fishermen of the day, any small fish at all - I can remember seeing all kinds of fish floating -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have hair on your head then?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I had lots of hair then.

- floating out the bay, small fish, just over the wharf, out of the boat and thrown away. What impact did that have on the fishery? I don't know, I am sure it had some impact. As a matter of fact, I made a comment that I was up on the Northern Peninsula a few years ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: You could walk across the harbour (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes you could walk across the harbour on small fish. The curious part about it, Mr. Speaker, is this; I was up on the Northern Peninsula a few years ago, just before the moratorium came on, and I went into a fish plant up there. I was up there on a holiday and went into a fish plant to get some ice. I looked at the fish that they had there and I could not believe the size, how small the fish were. I said, you can't be keeping that size fish. That was smaller, Mr. Speaker, than the fish that I used to see floating out the bay thirty years ago because it was too small. It was unreal.

To get back to what I started out on, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is on to something and he should proceed with it, but he has to be very careful of course because we have a few people who are there to stop it any way they can. He made a comment last night that I have to agree with too. He said the IFAW does not want us to stop the seal fishery, and he is probably right, because if we stop the seal fishery altogether then one of their accesses to money would be curtailed, Mr. Speaker. Again I think the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture should proceed, although cautiously, but proceed on the road that he is on. It is not too often, Mr. Speaker, that I stand in this House and agree with many of the statements of many of the ministers on that side of the House, but I will have to support him on this one.

Now, back to the Member for Topsail, Mr. Speaker. He was there making comments - the Member for Topsail, yes, that's him - with respect to the offshore. He talked about no deal in the offshore. I don't know what he was talking about there. The Member for Topsail, I wonder if he wanted to answer a question? No, he is afraid to answer me now; he must be. When you were talking about the offshore, and you said no deal on the offshore, what were you talking about?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I do know one thing with respect to the offshore, that I saw the Premier and the Prime Minister going out the Trans-Canada Highway. I remember seeing them on television for the official launch, I suppose, of the platform, trying to get in on the glory of it, something that was put there by the federal PCs, Mr. Speaker. Thank God for Mr. Crosbie, who put that there when times were hard. They had to go to Ottawa and fight to get the money to continue on with Hibernia, now one of the best projects ever in the history of the country, and we have people who had absolutely nothing to do with it, Mr. Speaker, out trying to get in the limelight and trying to get credit for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a good Newfoundlander.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who? Who is a good Newfoundlander?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Crosbie.

MR. J. BYRNE: Guaranteed.

AN HON. MEMBER: He stood up for Newfoundland.

MR. J. BYRNE: He did. He stood up for Newfoundland, big time. I am glad to hear the Member for Bellevue say that, that Mr. Crosbie stood up for Newfoundland, big time, over the years while he was in Ottawa. Thank God he was there, because where would we be? There would be no TAGS program, I can guarantee you that, and there would be no Hibernia project.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: But the NCARP was the prelude, too, and then we got into the TAGS program. That is a good point he is making. The Member for Bellevue is making a good point, that the TAGS program was brought in when the present Premier was there and he fought for it, there is no doubt there, but it was a continuation of the program that Crosbie had brought in, Mr. Speaker, the former member. But what is happening today? What is happening to our federal member today, our representative in the Cabinet?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Norm Doyle.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, the member in Cabinet. If it was Norm Doyle - that will come, I say to the Member from Bellevue. That will come. Do not worry about that. Just as the day will come in the very near future when all the faces you see on this side of the House will be soon on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and many faces you see over there will not be there. They will not be there, I can guarantee you that, in the very near future.

The Member for Bellevue is over there probably trying to distract me and what have you. When you are in the House of Assembly here you get to know people and talk back and forth, and even though we are on opposite sides of the House of Assembly you do become, I would not say close friends but we all share a commonality, I suppose, that we are here. It would be hard to see certain people on that side of the House not back there next time around, but I fear there is going to be a number that will not be back. A great number, over half of those there, will not be back in the next election. The Member for Port de Grave is finished. The Minister of Justice is finished. The Minister of Mines and Energy is finished. Who else over there, what other ministers? The Minister of Education is gone altogether, completely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not sure. I do not know enough about your district. I don't know about the Government House Leader because I really don't know enough about his district. I am not getting a lot of feedback from his district. I ask the Government House Leader: What do you think? Do you think I will be back?

MR. TULK: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you think I will be back?

MR. TULK: I think, to be frank with you, that there are (inaudible) on your side.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Who are they?

MR. TULK: You.

MR. J. BYRNE: Me.

MR. TULK: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. TULK: The Member for Bonavista South.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bonavista South.

I am going to add to that. The Member for Waterford Valley, guaranteed; the Member for Baie Verte, guaranteed; the strongest one here, the Member for St. John's West, guaranteed - everyone here - the Member for Conception Bay South, guaranteed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Wrong. I am telling you right now that what you are planning will backfire on you. Mark my words; what you are planning is going to backfire. This is May 29 at 11:25 on a Friday morning.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He is a good member, an excellent member. Mark it down. Get a copy of Hansard tomorrow, and after the next election we will see that at least half of those over there will not be back - at least half. I do not want to get into names, I do not want to get into districts too much, because I really do not want to make bad feelings and have members on that side of the House feel bad over the next two years, another two years before the election is called. The Minister of Justice wants me to sit down. Do you want to get up?

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You are getting up, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh. What do you think, boys? Should I sit down and let him up? No, I have too much to say.

Anyway, let's see what else we are going to talk about today with respect to the Budget. Again, I suppose I could talk about the three-year economic plan that they had, or the three-year Budget that they brought in a couple of years ago, a one-page document. It was a three-year Budget, a one page document. Now that will tell you the type of planning that this Administration has. They play it by ear. They will do a poll -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Get your story straight there (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I see.

They do a poll. They govern by polls. That is a major downfall of any Administration. You have to be leaders. You have to sometimes take the bull by the horn and go forward even though there may be a certain group opposing what has to be said. This Administration is not doing that and that is a fatal flaw, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, for this Administration.

It was really noticeable when the present Premier took it over. When you look at the polls, of course, the amount of money that has been spent on polls last year, $69,000 or something on polls compared to $3,000 by the previous Premier, that tells you a lot. That is twenty-three times more than the previous Administration spent; and it was a Liberal Administration too, by the way.

I think that government should be very wary of what they are up to with respect to the polls. They make use of them too much. They are going to have to reverse their ways and become true - if they want to stay on that side of the House, and they take my advice, they are going to have to get away from these polls and become true leaders, which they are not, Mr. Speaker. I really should not be giving this advice because we will end up on that side of the House in the very near future.

I mentioned something about rural Newfoundland in my conversation earlier, and I think what is happening in rural Newfoundland is very sad to say the least. We see houses being boarded up, potholes in roads, young people leaving now. What you are seeing also is that some of the older people are following their children out of the Province and out of rural Newfoundland, and that is something that needs to be addressed.

Again, I have to go back to the fishery. It is one of our natural resources that we have to somehow or other revive. If you have to go back to the inshore fishery, small boats, hand lines and traps, which sustained us for 500 years, go back to it. We have to go back to it. That kept rural Newfoundland going, the small communities, and we are not really doing a lot at this point in time. The Minister of Development and Rural Renewal - we have had all kinds of studies, all kinds of plans, but we have not really seen anything to rejuvenate rural Newfoundland, and we have to do that.

I see one of the members over there making notes. I expect he will be up as soon as he can trying to contradict what - I don't know how he can contradict what I am saying. He will have to agree with it, I expect. He will have to agree with what I have said here this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I am sure.

Anyway, we see in rural Newfoundland streetlights being turned off by the municipalities because they cannot afford to keep them on because of the out-migration. Trepassey is a prime example, and another communities in rural Newfoundland.

I have to go back to it again. I want to reiterate that we have to get some industry that is going to sustain us. Again I have to say that it is the fishery, the reason why we have been here.

Also, post-TAGS; we have been waiting and waiting and waiting for something on post-TAGS. We saw Members of this House of Assembly, an All Party Committee, go to Ottawa twice to try and talk some sense into the people in Ottawa. I don't know if it is the politicians so much. From the communications that I had with members who went to Ottawa, it seems to be the civil servants in Ottawa are the problem. It seems to me that they have an attitude that Newfoundland has been a drain on the country over the years. I have a real problem with that because from my perspective I think Newfoundland and Labrador has contributed more to this country than we have taken out, by far, when you look at what the federal government has done to the fishery of this Province, and how they used it and abused it; when you look at the Churchill Falls project that they are talking about, hundreds of millions of dollars each year going to another province of this country.

That attitude has to be changed. I think we have to work towards that. We have to refuse to accept everything from on high that we have been doing. We have to be prepared to take Ottawa on when it is for the benefit and the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said, the TAGS program was a plan that did not really work out. It didn't achieve what it set out to achieve, and the people of this Province, the people who should have benefitted from it, the people who lost their jobs, did not benefit from that plan like they should have. If it was put in place to do training, I think the training institutes in this Province gained more than the individuals. If it had been utilized to buy out individuals, to buy back licences, to give people an amount of money to get a good foothold somewhere, even if they had to leave, at least they would have had something to go on, but they were living on these false hopes.

A new program coming down has to look at many issues. The centre of that focus has to be the fisherperson. That is the new terminology now, to be politically correct, fisherperson. To me, fisherman, fireman, it is all-encompassing. The new program, when it comes - we don't know, we are still waiting - has to be focused on the individual. Those people who lost their jobs in the fishery and are not likely to go back, they are the ones it has to be focused on.

If you want to look at the previous program itself, if you had an individual who was forty-five years old, we will say, when they called the moratorium, we are looking at, what, five to seven years since the moratorium came in - six years - that person now will be fifty-one years old. If they had bought out that person's licence he or she could have gone on and made plans for his or her life.

If they talk about retraining someone who had probably a Grade VIII education, and a great number of the fisherpersons made a conscious decision not to further their education but to go into the fishery which they felt would be there to sustain them for the rest of their lives, and to sustain their families for the rest of their lives, they made that conscious decision to do that. If the person is forty-five years old with that level of education, and you are going to retrain that person for at least one or two years, up to a Grade XI or Grade XII equivalency, then you are going to train that person to do some other courses, maybe another year or two years, now you are looking at an individual who is fifty years old. That person then is going to try to go out into the industry, get a job, fifty years old, with no experience in that specific field.

It was doomed for failure from the beginning. That is why today we are now trying to come up with something else to help these people out. Help is not the right word. It is something they are entitled to, because of the abuse of the federal government with respect to this program, the fishery, and the industry itself.

These are a few comments that I am going to make. I think I am going to sit down now and see if anybody else on my side would like to get up and add to what I have said, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for your time.

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) on the important issues with respect to the resources of this Province, Mr. Speaker. We have, as many have said, a terrific resource in this Province of natural resources both on the sea and on the land, under the ground, offshore. Yet we continue to be on the low end, if not the lowest end, in terms of performance of our economy, in terms of poverty of our people, in terms of industrial wage, in terms of unemployment, in terms of the size of the tax base; so much so that a new party was formed six months or so ago to concentrate on that sole issue. I think it was called the Newfoundland and Labrador Party. The main policy of that party, if you can discern it from all of the other bits and pieces, was that Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders should get the maximum possible benefit from the use of our resources.

Now, that is not exactly a novel idea in Newfoundland politics, Mr. Speaker. I would say that every party present and past in this Province, every single party present and past in this Province, has had that as a basic, fundamental policy, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should obtain the maximum benefit from our resources.

So, Mr. Speaker, I guess the question then becomes: What distinguishes the various Parties with respect to resource development and resource issues? Do we design our policies, do we design our taxation regime, do we design our royalty regime to accomplish that fact, or do we design our taxation, royalty and policy regime to do something else?

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a bit of an article of faith for most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we are the - I think people call us the wealthiest country or the wealthiest Province in all of Canada in terms of natural resources. Now I do not know if that is true, Mr. Speaker. It is a fashionable thing to say and people say it out of some, you know, kind of emotional nationalism. I am not so sure it is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have the most resources. Certainly we have our fair share, Mr. Speaker. In terms of natural resources of the sea, we had more than our fair share, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems of this Province is that we have not been able to have sufficient control over our resources to be able to maximize the benefit to the people. Now why is that? Part of it, I suppose, is that we gave away some control of those resources. We gave it away to Canada by joining in Confederation, and I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are continuing that give away in terms of royalty regimes. Instead of giving it away to other countries or other jurisdictions, like the Europeans, we are giving it away to major corporations.

We see, Mr. Speaker, for example, a company like Inco which is able to spend $4.5 billion to purchase from somebody else the rights to extract minerals from Labrador. Four point five billion, Mr. Speaker, was paid by Inco to Diamond Field Resources to have the right to extract minerals from Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that did not benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It may have benefitted some of them. I suppose some of them had been on the gravy train, some of the wealthier people, perhaps, who could afford to put some money into stocks of Diamond Field Resources. In fact, I am told some members of this House, Mr. Speaker, had shares in Diamond Field Resources and made a lot of money as individuals.

MR. TULK: Probably you.

MR. HARRIS: Not this member, Mr. Speaker, not this member, but I am told, on very good authority, that certain members of this House had investments in Diamond Field Resources, and when it was sold to Inco for $4.5 billion dollars, some people made a lot of money, but it was not the people of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, it was not the taxpayers of Newfoundland.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that is just what I want to bring to the Speaker's attention.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is standing in this House and he is throwing slurs at every member of this House. He is trying, through the back door, in a manner that is unbecoming of a member of this House, to suggest that members of this House - and I don't know who they are - brought shares in Diamond Fields, and then when it was sold to Inco, made a substantial amount of money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to cast that kind of slur, I say to the hon. gentleman, on the members of this House, on his colleagues in this House, without naming them -

MR. HARRIS: That is a slur?

MR. TULK: Yes, it's a slur. You are casting slurs and you know you are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another lawyer who thinks he is above everyone.

MR. EFFORD: He didn't say that, did he?

MR. TULK: Yes, he did. He made the statement that there are certain members of this House who brought shares in Diamond Fields and, Mr. Speaker, he says, made a substantial amount. Maybe that is not the correct word, but the hon. gentleman is over there trying to suggest that somebody in this House did something dishonest and unbecoming of a member. Otherwise, he would not have raised it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, if the hon. gentleman does not have the courage to stand up and say who the members are he should not -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was only talking about himself.

MR. TULK: Well if he is talking about himself then he should tell us. He has an obligation to the House and to the people of this Province to stand up and clearly state who the members of this House are, that are somehow doing something that they should not do. Otherwise, he is disgracing all of us, including himself.

 

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman to stand up - I ask the Speaker to say to him - and name the people in this House who carried out the actions that he said they did. Otherwise - don't be too eager - he is disgracing all of us, every one of us. I can say to the hon. gentleman now that I know a number of people in this House who did not benefit from Diamond Fields, and I don't know anybody who did. If there is somebody who in any way benefitted from any position that they may have had - and it is somehow being suggested that they did - then he should stand up and name them. Otherwise, he should shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Are you speaking on the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is suggesting that I somehow have accused somebody of wrongdoing.

MR. TULK: You don't have the courtesy to do that.

MR. HARRIS: That I accused somebody of wrongdoing - that is not what I said at all.

MR. TULK: You should have the courtesy to (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I said, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador generally did not benefit from the sale of Diamond Field Resources to Inco but that there were certain individuals who had shares in Diamond Field Resources, and brought and sold them, who made a lot of money. I did not say that it was wrong for them to do that. I understand that people invest money in shares or mutual funds or whatever they do, and that at some point later they might sell them and make money.

MR. TULK: You are trying to slide out from under it now.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I did not allege any impropriety. What I said is some people made money but the people of Newfoundland generally did not. I did not suggest that anybody acted improperly or it was illegal or did anything bad. I said that some people made money but that the people of Newfoundland, generally, did not make money.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman - and you will go back and check Hansard - said that certain members of this House invested in stocks or shares in Diamond Fields, and certain members of this "House" made a lot of money on stocks and bonds in Diamond Fields.

Now, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, quite honesty, I take exception to that. I take personal exception to that. I am not speaking for anyone else in this House only myself, the Member for Carbonear - Harbour Grace. As a Cabinet minister, I was not allowed, legally not allowed, to invest or buy stocks and bonds in any companies that are investing in this Province. I say quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I am upset with it and I want the member to withdraw it and withdraw it immediately.

It is not right for him to leave the impression in this House, that there are people here in this House, especially me and I am speaking on behalf of myself, that I made money on the Diamond Fields. I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would be glad tomorrow morning, or the first chance I get next week, to lay before this hon. House the money that I did make on Diamond Fields, if this hon. gentleman will lay on the table how much he made out of the money he took out of Mt. Cashel. I will do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: I will do that. Public money! Public money!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement. If he do not want to withdraw it for the House, please withdraw it by using the name of the member for Carbonear - Harbour Grace.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Chair will take note of the point of order put forward by the Government House Leader. We will review the tapes, review Hansard and I will make a decision early next week.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will welcome your ruling and whatever the ruling is, I am sure, will be fair and wise.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that my speech is about the issue as to the resources of this Province and who benefits from them. The sale of Diamond Field Resources, or the sale of the Voisey's Bay resources, for $4.5 billion was not for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Whatever money this government may have made on that, I suppose they may have made some money on the provincial portion of the income tax that may have come their way, based on Newfoundlanders obtaining some capital gains. That is the only money this government would have made on that resource.

 

What do we have right now, Mr. Speaker? We have a situation where in December 1994 this House passed a piece of legislation amending the mineral tax act, and that amendment seemed to be based on the decision by government, and by the former Minister of Mines and Energy, Dr. Gibbons, that there were no more minerals left in Newfoundland, that we had nowhere to go. It was based on some sort of belief that there were no minerals left in Newfoundland, because in order to promote exploration in this Province the government decided that we had to give a ten-year tax holiday for every new mineral development in Newfoundland and Labrador; every one, no exception, no cap, no extension, no qualification.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Every new mineral development in Newfoundland and Labrador - and I know the truth hurts over there, Mr. Speaker. You can always tell when you are on a sore point because they bray and they try and shout you down, they try and divert attention, they try and change the topic. They always try to do that. You know you are getting somewhere when they shout and yell like that and try and talk about something else.

We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where this government in December 1994 decided we had no minerals in Newfoundland worth exploring to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we had to give a tax holiday to any mineral exploration company for developing new minerals in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, is his time up?

MR. EFFORD: He is on leave. I withdraw it.

MR. HARRIS: I am allowed to speak for thirty minutes, I say to the Government House Leader.

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

I just want to get this clear. The hon. members have used ten minutes, some hon. members have used twenty minutes, some hon. members have used thirty without interruption.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there was no leave requested. No leave, then.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what the agreement was. The agreement was that if people wanted to speak for thirty full minutes they could.

I understand the Member for Bonavista South spoke for eighteen minutes and four point two seconds.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. HARRIS: That is what I heard, eighteen minutes and four point two seconds. So the Member for Bonavista South has another minute and some percentage of a second left.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why they would want to withdraw leave. They do not want attention drawn to the fact that in December of 1994 they decided, as a government, that we did not have any mineral developments left in this Province except what would be developed based on a ten-year tax holiday.

We had a few tailings piles out in Buchans, or from ASARCO at Baie Verte. We had a few tailings piles. We had a few uneconomic small resources to go by. We had a few of those. That is all that the minister wanted to talk about, that these were uneconomic resources that would not be developed without a tax holiday of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, what happened after that? Even at that time, in December of 1994, Diamond Field Resources was increasing in value on the Vancouver stock exchange, starting to move up. In fact, it was brought to the attention of this House in December of 1990 that maybe something was going on in Labrador and maybe something had been discovered, and were we going to give to a bonanza like Voisey's Bay a ten-year tax holiday?

Well, Mr. Speaker, nobody listened to that warning at that time and that act was passed - not unanimously. There was one vote against it. There was one voice against it and there was one vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, what have we done since then? Have we replaced the Mineral Tax Act with a new royalty regime? No, Mr. Speaker, we have not. What we have done is, we have pussyfooted around with Inco. There have been statements made by the Premier that as the royalties go up the number of jobs go down, that we are going to trade jobs for royalties. Statements of that kind have been made. Statements about the viability of Inco, based on the amount of money they paid to someone else for access to our resources, that has been brought up.

What have we done? Have we brought in a new royalty regime? Have we even had a debate about what the royalty regime should contain? We had a bill, and when this bill was brought before the House in December 1995 it was given second reading. It was going to be passed, I would venture to say, by government, without any more than a day or so of debate, except that some people in the Opposition stopped it.

It was put off to a select committee of the House that was going to hold hearings, which was what was suggested by this hon. member, that we have some debate about it, and that we have hearings, and that we let the people of Newfoundland have a say as to what the royalty regime should be for a major find like Voisey's Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are a typical NDPer.

MR. HARRIS: What happened, Mr. Speaker? I thank the minister for his compliment. I appreciate that I am true to form, that I am a typical NDPer. I am glad to hear that I am true to form. I have been accused of worse than being a typical NDPer. I hope I am a true blue NDPer, one who is true to the principles of the party and beliefs that we have about how society should operate. I hope that I am and continue to be true to the principles of the New Democratic Party.

One of them is to have public discussion and debate on major issues such as this. We had, in fact, forced the government to put the royalty regime to a select committee of this House. So, what happened after that, Mr. Speaker? A committee was formed, was struck, but it never met, never had one single meeting. What happened next was a provincial election and we had a new government. Some hon. members who are sitting in the Cabinet now are part of the new government and were part of the old government.

So what happened to the select committee? What happened to the Mineral Tax Act? Gone, Mr. Speaker, gone. The committee is gone, the public debate is gone, the opportunity for input is gone. We have nothing except - we have negotiations going on.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened since then, there has been no debate about this. There have been negotiations going on between government and Inco. The public has been left in the dark and have not been included in debate. We have not even had any word from the academic community. We have not seen any papers published, letters to the editor, analysis of royalty regimes in other provinces. Some suggestions from the learned scholars at the university that we put a very handsome stipend towards, on an annual basis from this Legislature, over $100 million to all these independent scholars at Memorial University. I would like for some of them to do some research, to do some investigation, to write some papers to let us know, let the public of this Province know, what goes on in other provinces and other countries with respect to royalty regime. Let have some reasoned - and I say reasoned - debate about what percentage of the Voisey's Bay mineral regime should come, accrue, directly to the owners of the resource, the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what I would like to see, and at that point I will adjourn debate.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until Monday at 2:00 p.m. In the meantime, I think there is about an hour left on the Concurrence debate for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Will that be the end of Budget then?

MR. TULK: No, there are a couple of other things we have to do. After we have done that, I want to inform the House that we will move on to do the Loan Act, which is Bill No. 15; the Loan and Guarantee Act, which is Bill No. 11; and, of course we have to put the main Supply Bill. From there we will move to do the Medical Act and then the Medical Care Insurance Act, Bill Nos. 20 and 21. From that on - well, we have had a discussion about that. That should do us for Monday and Tuesday. If people want to be up over the weekend, they can.

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

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