May 20, 1999              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLIV  No. 28


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the House today three students visiting from Jens Haven Memorial in Nain, accompanied by three students from Bishop's College in St. John's. They are on an Exchange Program and they are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Wayne Coombs of Nain and Mr. Wade Seymour of Bishop's College.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise hon. members that I will introduce for first reading today, a bill to amend the Public Tender Act. The proposed amendment will have the effect of exempting from the Public Tender Act, the calling of tenders for voice telephone services including both local and long distance services.

This is a necessary and important amendment to the Public Tender Act. It gives the Province the same flexibility currently existing in all other jurisdictions, as other provinces have not dealt with this issue of tendering or contracting out for telephone services.

Mr. Speaker, government has held discussions with NewTel Communications, the current provider of these services. As a direct result of these discussions, the Province would save approximately $1 million annually on its telephone account. Government has been offered a rate for both long distance and local services that is comparable to and, in many instances, lower than that which other jurisdictions are currently paying. The proposed rate is less per minute than the rate charged to the Nova Scotia Government by MT&T, the per minute rate charged by New Brunswick Government by NBTel, and also the per minute rate charged to the Prince Edward Island Government by Island Tel.

Government has received an exceptionally good and competitive rate for both long distance and local services. Mr. Speaker, the rate for long distance should also be viewed in light of the fact that due to the location of our Province on the North American long distance grid, the cost of completing a call is more expensive here. Yet, the rate offered by NewTel is still less than the other Atlantic Provinces. The rate for local Centrex service is also reasonable when considering the fact that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has less than half the number of local calls as other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the government has had an excellent working relationship with NewTel. As all members know, it is a most reputable company and a good corporate citizen. NewTel employs some 1,500 persons with an average payroll of $43,000 per person. This equates to an annual yearly payroll of about $80 million. NewTel Communications is a company that makes a significant contribution to the economy in terms of wages and taxes, and it is a significant corporate sponsor of many cultural events in the Province.

The recent merger of the four Atlantic Provinces' telephone companies will have no negative impact on NewTel's local operations. The new company, AtlanticCo, is solely a holding company looking after international affairs. The local operation of NewTel and, for that matter, all other Atlantic telephone companies, will remain the same, each keeping their own separate identity. It is also worthy of note that the new CEO and CFO of AtlanticCo are from the NewTel organization based in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that this amendment will receive the unanimous support of members on both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I take my place, I would like to acknowledge today that we have in the gallery as, I guess, an indication of support hopefully for this initiative, representatives from the NewTel organization: Frank Fagan, Harry Connors and Jim Morgan, as well as representatives from the Board of Trade, representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Manufacturers and Export Association, as well as a number of major business corporations in the Province.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Public Tender Act for this specific purpose is one that, from government's perspective, we view to be an eminently sensible thing to do, an important initiative for us to take, and it recognizes appropriately the role of NewTel generally in our economy and in our Province, and we believe it is roundly beneficial to all concerned.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this Ministerial Statement. First of all, we also welcome to the gallery the representatives from NewTel, the Board of Trade, and those people involved with this statement.

Last year this Administration made some major changes to the Public Tender Act, and at that time I had some major concerns with the amendments; but, with this, it certainly appears on the surface that this is an acceptable and certainly an agreeable amendment proposed by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

It is good to see that NewTel, a local company in the Province - as the minister said, a good corporate citizen - it is good to see that we will be keeping our money in the Province in dealing with NewTel, of course, and, in the meantime, saving $1 million for the taxpayers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that I would just like to say again, I have had dealings with NewTel over the years. I have had many calls from competitors, to my home, trying to get me to switch to different phone companies. I am of the opinion that we should support our local companies, the people who are creating jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think we will supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that we look favourably upon this amendment. I do not think it was intended that the Public Tender Act capture telephone services just as another province. It does not, although in debate I would certainly be interested in hearing and having a discussion about how the Province is ensuring that we are getting the equivalent kind of rates that might be available if it were competitive bidding at work here.

I will note that NewTel has been using some of its cash flow and profits to develop a high-tech sector in this Province with a very great amount of investment and training for people in this Province to get involved in the high-tech sector. They have been recycling and reinvesting their money in this Province and I think this particular amendment and recognition of their role is acceptable - subject, of course, to debate and discussion about what is a proper method of ensuring that we are, in fact, getting the best price for this service for the taxpayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of privilege. Last Friday in this House, the Minister of Health and Community Services stood in her place with a Ministerial Statement and attributed statements to me that were false.

The member stated that I suggested the work of a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse at a publicly funded facility does not compare to that of a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse at a private facility.

In my statements, both inside this House and outside this House, I did not make any reference whatsoever to the work of health care professionals. In fact, I never even mentioned the words nurses or licensed practical nurses.

I find it quite inappropriate and very unprofessional that this minister would wait until I was out of the Province to attack me both inside this House and outside this House, an attack that is unjustified, for revealing deficiencies identified by her very own board and by independent consultants.

Minister, as for suggestions that I apologize, I do not intend to apologize to you or anybody because I did not make statements regarding the quality of care provided by nurses or licensed practical nurses, or any health care professionals for that matter.

It is unfortunate that you, Minister, would try to put your political spin on such an important nursing home issue. If anyone should apologize, it should be you. You should apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for your lack of sensitivity to health care concerns, and you should also apologize to the nurses and the nursing home boards for your failure as a minister to address the concerns and priorities identified by your very board that is funded and overseen by your department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: By leave, to respond?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member wishes to give an (inaudible).

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

I think it is important to note that when I made the statement in the House I had, on two days previous, when the member was opposite, stood and asked him not to apologize to me but to apologize to the staff of Hoyles-Escasoni, to the residents -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I may continue - not only to the staff but to the residents of Hoyles-Escasoni and their families.

The member opposite can say what he likes, but he knows what he said on NTV - I think it was the day of the questions here in the House - implying that the quality of care in a private institution was higher or better than that of those in the public.

It was obvious, because the next day on Open Line he was back-tracking and back-peddling the whole day, and when I raised it in the House he sat down and was as red as a beet because he knew what I said was accurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about professionalization, and that is important, I do think he should - if I said something implying that the quality of care was less in one organization than another, the member opposite would be the first one on his feet and say: Apologize! - not to me, but to the people who are providing the care and to the residents and families who have their relatives there.

It is not bad enough that he would release a report - and it shows the disrespect he has for the board, to release a report - that the board never even showed to their own staff. That is another piece of it.

In this case I do not want an apology, but I know that the staff do, I know the board does, and I know the residents would like to see it.

I also know that the residents over there feel quite confident about the care that is being provided. While at no point - he may not have mentioned an RN or an LPN. Who provides the care? RNs and LPNs and all the other staff.

I say to the member: Do the right thing. Apologize!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point that the member raised under advisement.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,.

My questions are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. The Canadian Blood Service selected certain sites to perform sensitive blood tests. The testing of the Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR technique is being developed to detect viruses in blood donations.

Concerns have been raised about the turnaround time, and the Canadian Blood Services recommended that testing should be performed in Canada at the CBS centres. Halifax was selected to perform testing for the Atlantic region.

I want to ask the minister: Who selected the centres that will carry out this testing procedure? What rationale was arrived at in deciding that Halifax would be the only centre in Atlantic Canada to conduct the testing?

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

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

The CBS, the Canadian Blood -

AN HON. MEMBER: Agency.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Agency - replacing the Red Cross Society, are the organization that makes those kinds of decisions.

As this hon. House would know, after the Krever inquiry, the CBS was set up to deal with all of such issues, including the administration and the monitoring of blood and blood products in this country. They are the ones that chose the site for that particular test, the polymer test.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland is a partner, I guess, or a shareholder in the Canadian Blood Services - one of the provinces, one of the participants. Newfoundland and Labrador has highly skilled workers, laboratory technologist, clinical workers and so on, to do the testing. We are once again, I say to the minister, losing jobs to Halifax when Newfoundland and Labrador has only half as many of those federal jobs per capita as other provinces in this country.

I want to ask the minister: What did she do to fight to see that these jobs were put here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

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

I fully agree that the staff here in this Province are highly qualified and very skilled but, as I said perviously, since the Krever inquiry it has been made very clear that the relationship is one of an advisory capacity.

The CBS makes those decisions, and I am sure if the member opposite were to look into the rationale, the rationale, from the best that I can understand, is based on the fragility of the test and the fact that this test has to be done in a central location because - it became the decision of the CBS for the Atlantic region. Just like many other provinces do not have their own site, there are only a number of sites across the country. Some of the major cities did get a site and others did not, but that was the decision of the CBS.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as provinces we are not interfering with it. Nobody here is going to lose their job as a result of that. The people here will maintain their jobs.

Again, I have met with members from NAPE - once in person and twice with my officials - we have reassured them that these decisions are made by the CBS and that we are not interfering in those. We always do try to attract jobs to this Province but there comes a point when the safety of the product and the necessary requirements to maintain that safety are foremost.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister mentioned fragility as one of the factors and concerns. Yes, I did speak with people who gave a report and they have indicated to me as late as last night that they have not had a response back from their letter.

I want to ask the minister: What actual research was done prior to selecting those locations? How was it determined that Halifax was a suitable location to carry out testing for Newfoundland and Labrador when you said fragility is very important?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out, it is a very fragile test and, because of the nature of the test, they were at first considering having it done in specialized centres in the U.S.

Halifax has been chosen to be the Atlantic site for Nova Scotia. The other sites include Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto. For example, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Calgary location, will not have test sites either. This is more of a safety and quality control issue than it is for one of economics. That is the rationale behind that site.

I, as minister, did not interfere in the choosing of the site because I think one of the things that every government and territory has learned in this country, since the Krever inquiry, is that the people who are the experts are the best to make these decisions in terms of where those sites should be located, for example.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister made some reference to fragility. As she is well aware, blood specimens are extremely susceptible to temperature fluctuations, and turnaround time is very important. Here in a Province where were are isolated, we are an Island here in this Province, we could be putting our residents in this Province at risk.

St. John's Airport may be often fogged in. It is almost a four-hour drive to Gander, and the only major airport in Nova Scotia is at Halifax.

I want to ask the minister: What are the plans for the method of transportation of those blood specimens? How are they to be transported?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again because I think it is important that the CBS, the Canadian -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for this House to know that the Canadian Blood Services is an arm's-length organization. It has been appointed and mandated to operate the blood system in Canada by provincial and territorial ministers.

It is the belief and understanding of all those involved that if they are to operate the blood system and to be held accountable, because accountability was a major issue with the Krever inquiry, that it must be allowed to make its own decisions about quality and about safety control issues.

That is the rationale. I am not in a position as a minister to second-guess the CBS in their decision around the sites they have chosen.

Our objective in Canada is to have an integrated blood system. That is what we have been working on for the last three years, in fact, as Health Ministers.

Again, I think it is important to note that they are the group who are overseeing the safety of the blood. They are the ones who will be deciding how these tests will get to the various sites. I know in various areas of this country we will have to deal with issues around remoteness and geography, and those issues will be undertaken and resolved by the CBS, the Canadian Blood Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not disputing, Minister, that they are in Halifax and other areas. I am just asking about here in our Province. Has the minister made representation putting forth about our Province being isolated geographically, the only access is by air, and with the major population in this area (inaudible). Has she made that representation, to having one here in addition to having the other ones here in the country, and put forth the views representing our Province so we could not only have access to higher safety levels for our residents but also access to work for our highly skilled people that we need here?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate again, because I think it is of utmost importance, this is not an issue about jobs. This is not an issue related to the economy. This is about a safety issue, and I think it is important.

I have confidence in my staff and the appointees that we have on the board to make representation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am answering the question, if the member opposite would allow me.

I have full confidence in our appointees and in our staff in making that representation. We have been very clear about the needs related to Newfoundland, but I think it is most important again to reiterate that we do not interfere with the activities of the CBS. They have been mandated to obtain and to have quality control. They have made that decision and we have to support that decision because they are doing it for safety reasons.

This is not about jobs, it is not about economy, and I think it is important to note - it is very important to note - that no decision has been made to move any existing testing services or staff from St. John's to Halifax.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are with respect to the inequities in the Upper Churchill contract.

We all know that the failure of the federal government to secure a power corridor through Quebec for our hydro resulted in this inequitable agreement. I ask the minister: What attempts are being made with his federal counterparts to secure compensation for this federal failure?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

None at the moment.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In his maiden speech to this House the former Leader of the Opposition, on March 10, 1988, and former Premier, Clyde Wells, said: It is clearly and unquestionably unfair to Newfoundland, yet it is justified in the national interest. If it is justified in the national interest it is a burden which the nation ought to bare, not one which this Province alone ought to bare.

I ask the minister: What proposals have this government brought to the federal government - if not now, perhaps in the past - to fairly provide compensation, and what has been their response?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of one, an attempt by the previous Progressive Conservative Administration to bring in a water rights reversion act, which was stuck down in the Supreme Court of Canada and ruled that the approaches tried by Premier Peckford and the group were unlawful, improper, tainted legislation.

I am not aware of any immediate proposals that this particular government, in the Tobin Administration, has before the Government of Canada. However, I think everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is very pleased to know that as a result of drawing attention to this issue again and entering into direct negotiations with the Province of Quebec who have been the big beneficiaries of the wealth generated by the Upper Churchill project, which is still one of the greatest engineering marvels that was achieved in the world.

As a result of direct negotiations between Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Quebec, this year alone, this year just past, we saw, in fact, a recall of some 127 megawatts of power that was agreed to by the Province of Quebec - even though they did not have to under the power contract - that generated almost $30 million in additional revenues, in the year past, for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Premier announced just last week, Mr. Speaker, as a result of negotiations directly between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Quebec, that we will be signing and having the boards of the hydros ratify, within a week or so, the whole notion of a Guaranteed Winter Availability agreement, which will generate in excess of an additional $1 billion to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the life of the Upper Churchill contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs who is responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Mr. Speaker, the maintenance division of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has moved from Hallett Crescent to the former Hickman's Building Supplies building on Blackmarsh Road. I understand that they were late in moving and there were extensive renovations and upgrading to the new premises on Blackmarsh Road. Sources tell me that many changes were made as the renovations were being completed, such as walls being torn down, materials dumped, and then more walls constructed.

Can the minister inform the House how much money has been budgeted for that project, who is doing the work, and if there are any cost overruns or contract extensions?

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

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

The hon. member is accurate to the extent that NLHC maintenance and other functions within the region have consolidated from two sites, one from, I think, Hallett Crescent in O'Leary Industrial Park and one from a site in Donovans Industrial Park as well. They have relocated from two sites to one site on Blackmarsh Road. I think it is the former A.E. Hickman Building, maybe. There are some renovations to their new location in order for them to be accommodated there.

The bottom line is that we are doing the renovations through the Corporation. At the end of the five-year lease tendering period, the cost of the renovations plus the cost of the rent that we will be paying there will be considerably less than what we would have had to pay at the other two locations had we remained there, based on the tenders that were called.

So, it is an efficiency move. It will facilitate better services in the region and it is more centrally located. For all the appropriate and right reasons, Mr. Speaker, the move has been made by the Corporation.

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

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

Can the minister inform the House if tenders were called for the supply of materials, such as electrical, plumbing, drywall, lumber, et cetera, to complete the project, and if so, who was the successful bidder?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can provide and table in the House, for the hon. member, copies of tenders that have been called and names of successful bidders that have been received, and we can provide you with the total cost of doing the renovations, once I get that information together. Off the top of my head, I do not know all the names of all the contractors, so I do not want to pontificate on the basis of giving the illusion that I know every individual contractor. We will get the information, we will table it in the House, and I think it will be satisfactory for the hon. member's inquiry purposes.

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

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

Just a quick comment before I ask the question. I heard a comment being made in the House about the minister. There is no insinuation here with respect to his (inaudible), none whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I am correcting that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has signed a lease - and you just confirmed it - a five-year lease, without conditions included for parking, and that Housing had to negotiate a further lease for parking. Can the minister give the details of the lease agreement, such as the rental cost per month for the building, the rental cost per month for parking, the term of the lease, and regarding renovations or upgrading, will there be any further conditions once the five-year lease is up?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the preamble to the question: I appreciate the hon. member taking the time to clarify the fact that in his mind, although some of his colleagues may have indiscriminately and with poor discretion suggested otherwise, that there is nothing personal involved in this question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I appreciate the hon. member making that very clear.

To the question of whether or not I can provide all of the information with respect to the tenders that were called, the lease that was entered into and any subsequent leasing arrangements that had to be undertaken: I would be happy to get all of that together and provide it to the hon. member. I have no difficulty with it.

I can assure the hon. member, that from government's perspective and from all of us on this side of the House, we are not only as interested in, but we are more determined than anybody, to ensure that what we do on this side of the House in terms of procurement activities, whether it is for leased space or for goods and services, is done consistent with the Public Tender Act, done consistent with what is best for the taxpayers of the Province, and where we have to take action, such as we have done earlier today in the House, by advising the House that we proposed amendments to the Public Tender Act, where we think we can do things better outside of the act, we will not hesitate to move and do things in that direction as well. For purposes of the question: All of the information that he requires, and more, will be provided if he wants it.

I would suggest to the hon. member that he should probably put all of his questions in writing to me, so that I can have the information provided to him on a timely and in a factual basis and answer any additional questions he might have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I say to the minister: I don't think it is necessary to put them in writing, I can pick up a copy of Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. Minister, Housing was late in moving from the sites. I would like to know how much extra was paid out in rent because of the late move. I have heard they were as late as two months in moving to the new premises.

Also, I would like to know what the impact would be - I understand there were some overtime issues involved with the work being done in the premises on Blackmarsh Road and that there were a lot of extra expenses incurred - and if, in fact, this would have an impact on the monies that would be available for renovations, maintenance and upgrading to the regular social housing program by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Leases that need to be extended on a month to month basis are extended on the basis of arrangements currently in place; so there would be no additional cost other than we would be staying where we are a little longer than we had planned on. On the other hand, we would pick up our new lease at a point that would not cause double rent costs, if you like.

In terms of providing him, as I said earlier, with all of that information, I would be glad to do so.

In terms of whether or not this move and the expenditures that go along with it would have an impact on what we would have to spend in social housing programs, I would say: Yes, it will have an impact. It will have a positive impact because we are going to be spending less money for rental purposes over the life of the five years. To that extent, we will have more money to apply to social housing needs.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy, who indicated yesterday morning on the radio that he was anticipating a proposal from Voisey's Bay Nickel in the not too distant future, in a month or two.

Can the minister explain to the House, how VBN can actually make a proposal to the government, because there is no mineral tax act in place that would indicate what the royalties were and we are still under the 1994 legislation which provides a ten-year tax holiday? So, I want to ask the minister whether he expects Voisey's Bay Nickel to offer a particular royalty, are they going to decide what the royalty is, or is this government going to decide what the royalty should be to the people of this Province? What is the answer to that question?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For about the 250th time, in this Legislature and outside, we will give the same answer. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador and everybody associated with the Voisey's Bay project, including Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco, understands that there will be no tax holiday with respect to the Voisey's Bay project. That has been very clear from the very first moment that the Voisey's Bay deposit was discovered. Everybody knows that.

The technical aspect of it, that the actual legislation has not yet passed this Legislature, is a minor point that is not even raised in discussions with Inco. They do not raise it as a problem because they know they are not getting a tax holiday for ten years. They have known it from day one. They only person who is still talking about it is the NDP member, who normally wants to tax corporations more. Is he suggesting we should give them a ten-year tax holiday? Because they know they are not going to get it.

If he wants to get up again on their behalf and ask for a ten-year tax holiday for Inco, then make his position clear because they are not asking for it. They have never asked for it. They know they are not getting it. The only person in the world who is talking about it is the Leader of the NDP. Maybe he should let us know that he talks about it every chance he gets maybe because he thinks they should have it, because nobody else is even talking about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note that the minister is trying to be a copycat for the Premier. Maybe he really wants his job. He still has not answered the question. Nobody in Newfoundland knows what the taxes and royalties are for mineral development in Labrador because this government has not amended the legislation. This government has not told anybody in this Province what the taxes are. If Voisey's Bay Nickel knows, it is because the government has told them and not the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: What is the royalties regime? What are the taxes? What are the amendments that are going to be tabled in this House to the legislation so that the people of Newfoundland can know whether we are going to get a fair deal on this development or any other development?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is one thing I do know: I do not want to be Mayor of St. John's, most definitely not, never did, not going to run for the job, not interested.

I have had the privilege of being in charge of a few things in my life; because the speech the hon. member gave when he wanted to be mayor was, `I would like to run something for a change', because he admitted he has never run anything. It is obvious from the line of questioning that he is not about to run the Government of Newfoundland with that kind of questioning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Let me answer the question clearly again. Everybody in the world - in the world, as we know it - understands that there is no ten-year tax holiday with respect to the development of the Voisey's Bay project - everybody in the world - and that includes everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The real issue here is whether this government is being run by Inco as to what the royalties are going to be in Labrador. Everybody may well know that they are going to have to pay royalties, but not one person has an official word from this government as to what the royalties are going to be and what the benefits of mineral royalties or mineral taxes for this Province are going to be, because no changes have been made to the legislation. Unless this government has secretly told Voisey's Bay Nickel, nobody else knows.

What are the royalties going to be? What is the royalty regime? When is the minister going to make it public and table it in this House and change the legislation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have given a commitment. It was raised with respect to questioning in the Legislature earlier this week.

When the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador receives and analyses a proposal from Inco - because there is none today - with respect to development of the Voisey's Bay property, and if we are convinced upon analysis that it provides full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, we will describe it completely to everybody in the Province because we will be out saying: This is good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for these reasons.

If that does not exist, if there is no project proposed with all of the considerations - taxation, royalties and so on - that meets with the criteria that the government has established in legislation, that it provide full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, there will be nothing to describe to the people of the Province.

I can guarantee you one thing: Contrary to what the hon. member was trying to suggest last Friday in a press conference, this government will not propose any development plan for acceptance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that leaves us impoverished as a result of the development of the Voisey's Bay nickel deposit. I think that the hon. member was trying to make a point last Friday - I don't think he made it very well - but the fact of the matter is, there will be tremendous benefits accruing to Newfoundland and Labrador as the result of the development of the Voisey's Bay nickel deposit or it will stay in the ground. A very simple position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. The topic today, Minister, is special needs children. Their parents continue to be frustrated by this government's decision-making, that in spite of a strong commitment in the Liberal Red Book to meet the educational needs of these students, the Premier as well gave a commitment in Gander to open up a dialogue that would lead to services being allocated on the basis of need, as recommended by Dr. Canning in her report, rather than the present complex formula that results in a lot of paper being pushed but not necessarily in better services being offered to the special needs children.

Minister, why has the government not initiated a constructive dialogue with parents of these children on the introduction of a needs-for-service approach to the delivery of learning opportunities for these children?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this government is as committed to the needs of our children as anyone else in this Province, particularly those children with special needs. It is for that very reason that we have agreed to establish a round table in Grand Falls. That is scheduled for May 31 - for the information of the member opposite - at which time we will be sitting down with the stakeholders who have expressed concerns about the needs of children, special needs, and we will have a comprehensive discussion on the way to address the needs of children in our system.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier gave a commitment to the introduction of a pilot program where help would be allocated on the basis of need; this is in Gander area. In spite of letters forwarded to the minister, the Member for Gander and senior officials of the department, seeking information on the establishment of this pilot project, when will the government move to introduce this pilot project that was a commitment made by the Premier on the eve of the election?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the round table will in effect be the second meeting that will have been held on this particular subject. In fact my colleague, the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, chaired a session in Gander at which there were parents from both the Gander area and Grand Falls area who came together to discuss the needs of children with special needs.

Mr. Speaker, subsequent to that, we have had correspondence as well to my colleague, the Member for Buchans-Grand Falls and to the Member for Gander, to again discuss how we should go forward with this. This is a very important, serious matter, one that we want to give comprehensive discussion to, one that we want to sit down and do a thorough analysis of in terms of the requirements of these children.

Mr. Speaker, this is not something we are taking lightly. In fact, based on the requests that we have had and the commitment given by the Premier during the election, we are moving forward - moving forward with the round table again, as I say, on May 31. That will bring together all of the stakeholders to again discuss the needs of those children, but this is not something that is going to happen overnight. This is going to be a process that will take some time because, again, we want to ensure that it is done right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I hereby table the annual report for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women for the fiscal year 1997-1998.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to report that the Social Services Committee has considered the Estimates of the following departments: Human Resources and Employment; Education; Health and Community Services; Environment and Labour; and Justice, and that these Estimates have been approved without amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act".

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we will have to amend the record to show that my colleague was more anxious than I, or at least it seems that way.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act". (Bill 17).

Thank you.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government; and

WHEREAS the provision of services to the travelling public is also important; and

WHEREAS the 120 jobs provided by the Whitbourne businesses are also important to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the present approved plan for the Trans-Canada Highway through Whitbourne ensures public safety and services;

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House endorse the Department of Works, Services and Transportation's plan for the Trans-Canada Highway at Whitbourne.

We will smoke out the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, finally.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide further detail to the answer to the question raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the government's position on the development of the Voisey's Bay deposit, and whether or not there has been a change in position.

I would like to table, as part of this answer, some five documents; first and foremost, clippings from The Telegram, July 30, 1998, in which Inco reports they have discovered new reserves and are encouraged with respect to Voisey's Bay.

I would like to table as well, as a further answer, that on August 11, 1998, in the Canadian Business section of The Globe and Mail, Inco changed its mind and made a public statement that it was not feasible to do any smelting or refining in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will table as well, the October 19 presentation to the environmental panel where Mr. Rowat, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, proposed a smaller mill and concentrator, on page 2 of that brief. This was October 19, 1998 - the position that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and this morning was trying to describe as a flip-flop and a change in the last few days - Mr. Rowat proposed a 133 million pound annual production, instead of the 270 million pounds proposed for Argentia, a smaller mill and concentrator.

A couple of weeks later, on October 31, before the same panel, Newfoundland and Labrador's position, on page 4, demonstrated again that even though we had recommended a smaller one, that analysis had been done that even the company's proposal, contrary to what they said on August 11, 1998, was viable and ranked in the lowest quartile of projects in the whole world.

Then again on February 6, during the election - in which I guess the Leader of the Opposition was too busy promising $800 million worth of tax cuts that he could not afford - the Premier of the Province, indicating Newfoundland would welcome a smaller operation, half the size, for example, that would extend the life of the Voisey's Bay mine: Tobin has insisted there will be no mining lease without full benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador but did not agree that the project can only go ahead with the massive 270-million-pound-a-year smelter/refinery originally proposed in 1996.

Just to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition understands the answer to the question, and understands there has been no change of position in the last two days by the minister on behalf of the government, I will table these documents so they can read them and finally get their act straight as to whether they are going to support the government in getting a fair deal with Inco, or try to be a cheerleader for the proponent of the project and try to suggest that we should make some kind of a different deal so that we can get the deal now in case we might have to leave the ore in the ground for forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.

I would like to table the documents, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the five kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is another one in a series of petitions that I have continued to bring forward to the House of Assembly, to bring forward the concerns that are being expressed to me by the residents of Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Upper Amherst Cove, Middle Amherst Cove, and Lower Amherst Cove, and asking me, as their voice in the House of Assembly, to bring forward their concerns about the condition of this five kilometres of roadway leading from Birchy Cove, which is the community closer to Bonavista, and Bonavista itself.

Mr. Speaker, the parents are raising concerns because they are concerned about the daily trips that they take over this particular roadway to either go to work or to access government services. The students themselves are echoing their concerns. They are signing many of the petitions. In fact, I would suggest that there are some students' names attached to this particular petition because they are the ones who have to travel over this stretch of roadway at least twice a day, five days a week, in order to go to Matthew Elementary and Discovery Collegiate in Bonavista.

In raising the issue here so many times, it was only yesterday that the Constable who sits down where the Sergeant-at-Arms sits many times in this House, Constable Codner, came to me and said: Roger, if I could pave your road, I would. Here is a donation. I want to be the first one to help you in your plight to get that road resurfaced.

He left a $5 bill in my pocket, on my table. What I will do is, I will take the $5 bill and send it out to one of the concerned parents in the district where they will be able to probably buy another fifteen postage stamps, in writing the minister, to bring forward their concerns and their suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, there are letters arriving every day at the minister's office. There are faxes arriving every day in the minister's office. I know there are phone calls because the parents have met on several occasions and said: What can we do to try to have those five kilometres of road upgraded and paved?

They talked about blocking the road, but said: No, we are not going to do that because we do not want to divide the community. We do not want to stop people who have a reason to go to another community and send them in another direction.

They talked about stopping the school buses, but said: No, we are not going to do that because the education of our children is very important and we do not want them to lose a day of school, especially at this particular time of the year.

So, being responsible people, they said: What we will do is, we will send petitions to the House of Assembly. We will send letters to the minister. We will go out on the road and hand out pamphlets to ask people if they, themselves, would write the minister, or send this letter to the minister, after they had occasion to drive over the road and see the condition it is in.

That is what they have done, Mr. Speaker and that is what they are going to continue to do.

I said five kilometres of road; that is the distance between Bonavista and Birchy Cove. The parents themselves have stated quite clearly that if government cannot upgrade and pave the five kilometres of road, then maybe they will upgrade and repave, recap, two-and-a-half kilometres which is the worst section of roadway. They are willing to put up with that. They are willing to sacrifice their concerns for their own communities where the roads are in terrible condition, and they are all willing to concentrate on this particular section of road on Route 235 so that can be upgraded and paved first.

I am sure they will not be quiet about their own roads leading through their own communities once this is complete, and I do not blame them. I support them 100 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not maintain our roadways, and if we do not maintain our infrastructure, then it tells us that we do not believe in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It tells us, Mr. Speaker, that we are going out to those areas where they pay the same amount for insurance on their cars, they pay the same amount of taxes, it costs them the same to license their cars, they pay the same taxes on gasoline -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - as residents in any other part of this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I bring forward my petition, I bring forward the concerns of the residents, and hopefully government will act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people listed here from the Triton-Brighton area.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Triton and Brighton, and their supporters;

WHEREAS programming at Brian Peckford Elementary School in Triton is greatly restricted as a result of insufficient space; and

WHEREAS the school council has applied to the Education Investment Corporation with our full support for a school extension for the 1999-2000 school year;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urged the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take the action necessary to allow an extension to the school to proceed in 1999-2000 school year; and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I visited the school a couple of times, and this is a serious need for the students at that school, from K to VI. There are special needs students in that school. Next year there will probably be a decline of about nine students and a possibility of another six added, depending on the people who said they are going to move into the area.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable, when you go into a school such as this, a fairly decent school, when you have a classroom fifteen-and-a-half feet by nine-and-a-half feet, where you have to teach special needs students. Next year there will be two more special needs students added on to that list.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government realizes the need there. It is been supported by the council, by the school board, and by all the professional people who attend that school to teach the programs and deliver the support that is needed by the students in that school. I think, if something is not done before the middle of the summer, if a commitment is not made, then this fall these students will have to go back into the same situation or even far worse conditions. If a commitment can be made as early as possible, than maybe by the September opening some of the problems will be taken care off, and I hope they will. I think the minister will recognize that. I have faith in her that she will seriously look at the situation and seriously realize that it has to be done. It is a special need for special students. I think, Mr. Speaker, she is going to have to find the funds to let the school board do their work in Brian Peckford Elementary School in Triton.

I have faith in the minister, as I say, that she will certainly get out there. I do not know if she has seen it firsthand, but she is aware of the situation there. I am concerned and the parents are concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that this problem will be taken care of before the beginning of the next school year.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Windsor-Springdale. Mr. Speaker, in 1997-1998, with the restructuring that went on in education, Brian Peckford Elementary and Harbour View Academy combined to form a K to VI school to serve the communities of Triton and Brighton.

Mr. Speaker, as the member has said, the school population in this part of the Province is very stable. They had projections done which show that the school population there will change very little over the next several years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the House's attention the difficulties this school is now facing. For example, this school has an instructional area measuring nine-and-a-half feet by fifteen-and-a-half feet and that area accommodates a Criteria C student. It is also a combination and serves as a nurse's office and an AV storage room. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that because this is the difficulty that the students in this school are having. We have a room, nine-and-a-half feet by fifteen-and-a-half feet, that serves as a nurse's office, an AV storage room and it also serves as an instructional area for a Criteria C student.

Mr. Speaker, this school has a resource centre library room that measures twenty-seven feet by twenty-one feet. That room doubles as a computer lab and presently accommodates eleven computer stations. They are also in the process of purchasing more computers. This room also serves to provide services to two autistic children. Mr. Speaker, this is incredible, that we would have these special needs students accommodated in these kinds of facilities. Their science storage room measures only nine feet by twelve feet. Mr. Speaker, the room where the Criteria C student is housed is in the middle of the building. It does not even have a window. This special needs child has no access to fresh air.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we want to say to the government that this is a genuine case. The parents have the support of the school council, they have the support of the local communities of Brighton and Triton and they have the support of the local school board. It is unnecessary, and it is certainly unwise, to have school children with special needs being accommodated in such squatty, miserable places. It shows the priority that this government has on special needs children, when we ask their parents to have them accommodated in their school in such small, confined spaces.

Mr. Speaker, we also bring to the government's attention that in this school the guidance services must be delivered in various rooms when they become available. It not only happens that the principal and teachers have to go and ask, when will the guidance counsellor be here - because there is only one guidance counsellor for every 1,000 students, so with 115 students you are going to have a guidance counsellor there, on average, once every ten days or one hour every ten hours, but that does not happen. So when the guidance counsellor arrives there is no space for the guidance counsellor. Therefore, the classes in the resource centre get postponed in order to accommodate counselling. Mr. Speaker, this is not fair and equitable allocation of educational resources. So, Mr. Speaker, this particular school, Brian Peckford Elementary, has special needs.

As well, the public health nurse lost her space when the Criteria C student began to use the instructional area that we referred to earlier. So, like the guidance counsellor, when the nurse arrives someone has to be put out of an instructional area so that these students and the nurse can have access to suitable facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the principal's office in this school is a mere eleven feet by nine-and-a-half feet. This is totally, totally inadequate. When you have children in a school where the classroom for that child is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - nine-and-a-half feet by fifteen-and-a-half feet, we have to ask ourselves: Where are the priorities?

We, on this side, thoroughly and completely support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 3, Concurrence Motion: Government Services Committee, Resource Committee, and Social Services Committee, even though it is not on the order paper. It was agreed that we will debate this.

Mr. Speaker, I would also move that the House not adjourn at five o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and second that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

Carried.

Motion 3, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to introduce the Concurrence Motion relative to the estimates that were considered by the Department of Social Services.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the members of the committee, those members on this side of the House, the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and on the side opposite, the Member for St. John's South, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne and the Member for St. John's East, I thank them very much for their diligence at the committee hearing. Most of the members were present for most of the meetings, and where they could not be in attendance because of other pressing province-wide duties, they did offer suitable replacements.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few moments to speak to the Estimates of the Social Services Committee, because amongst the estimates that we did consider were two departments which are probably the most contentious or the most publicly discussed issues in the Province today, the Department of Education and the Department of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather perplexing that when one considers the nature and the scope of the problems facing the Province today, and looking at the bigger picture to see the types of comments that are frequently coming up in this Chamber - I would say I hear the comments in the Chamber and I did not hear them in committee. Mr. Speaker, what we are facing in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is nothing short of a revolution. In the field of education, we have gone from a student population, in 1972 or thereabouts, of something in the order of 160,000 students, to today, in 1999, something like 97,000 students; with a projection that by the year 2010, which may seem a long way away, but keep in mind this is 1999, just on the eve of 2010, down to some 60,000 students. In short, in less than a quarter of a century, we have lost about a 110,000 students in our population.

Now, anyone who would sit back and say, business as usual, are obviously living in a different world than I am living, because, Mr. Speaker, when you are dealing with that kind of a student decline, you are looking at nothing short of a massive revolution in the education system.

On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, we had to build up an infrastructure to accommodate these large numbers of students, and now we are faced with the converse of that problem, trying to downsize to provide all students in the Province, wherever they might be, with a quality well-rounded education. Mr. Speaker, that is not a small challenge, that is a massive challenge, regardless of who is in power at the time, whether it be the government that is represented by the party on this side or by the party on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, that there are problems in the education system resulting from this restructuring and the redesign, should be no surprise to anyone.

Mr. Speaker, we are into this issue of teacher allocation. It has become very topical. It is like the flavour of the month. I get very frustrated from time to time, because teacher allocation is a major issue, but the issue that we need to address is the issue of a declining student population. Whether we like it or not, with fewer students in the school system, it follows, as surely as day follows night, that there must be and there should be less teachers available or needed in the system.

As a member of this House, if that were the level the debate was at in this Province, I could really sit down with my colleagues opposite and share with them some views, and they could share with me some of their views, but what we seem to be now doing is getting down to the very lower level of detail, expecting this hon. House to deal with almost: Who is the janitor and when does he show up for work? - that level of detail. I say that by comparison, and comparison only.

The role of this House is to deal with the issues, to deal with them at the policy level, to put in place a system that works and will work to the betterment of the Province and to the students of this Province, and that is what we have done. That was the whole notion of the reform process. That was why the people of this Province, in two consecutive referendum, voted for educational reform.

They voted for educational reform for many reasons, but one of the major reasons was because we are faced with a change in the population of this Province in the number of students in schools and university.

Yet, day after day I seem to feel that we are still fighting the battle, the referendum battle. That issue has been decided. It has been decided overwhelmingly by the population of this Province. Let's get on with our lives. Let's get on with putting into place an educational system that meets the needs of today and that, in fact, provides a quality well-rounded education for all students whether they live or whether they go to school in La Scie, St. Anthony, St. John's, Corner Brook or Gander; the same quality and the same all around type of education. So, let's get the debate focused firmly upon the issue at hand; let's not go revisiting old battles and old issues.

The other issue that was considered in the departments that we looked at was the whole issue of health care. Just as I said that in the educational system we are facing a revolution where we have fewer students in our system and we are trying to downsize an infrastructure to meet the reality of today, just the opposite is happening in the health care system. We are facing an aging population.

Whether I would care to acknowledge that or not, I am part of that aging population. Our population is getting older, the population is requiring a greater level of care, a great stress is being placed upon the system, and we are facing an opposite issue to one that we were facing in education. Whereas in education we were trying to downsize an infrastructure to meet a lower population and a lower number of students, on the health side we are doing the reverse. We are trying to build up the infrastructure to meet and to take care of the needs of an aging population.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening at this point in time in the Province is nothing short of a revolution. I firmly believe that in the years to come, when we become much older and we are looking at the history books of the year 2020 - for those of us who may or may not be around at that time, but certainly our children will -

MR. TULK: 2020?

MR. MERCER: 2020.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) will only be about sixty-five.

MR. MERCER: You will be around in 2020?

Well, some members may be sixty-five by the year 2020 but there is one member who will much older than sixty-five.

MR. TULK: Who is that?

MR. MERCER: Well...

The point I am trying to make is that I firmly believe that in the far distant future when the history books are written about this period of Newfoundland's history, people will look back and say: How did they cope with the issues that were facing them at that time? How did they face the issues of a major downturn or a major reduction in the number of students going to school and, at the same time, trying to build up a massive infrastructure to take care of an aging population?

It is a very complex problem. Everyone on this side of the House, I am sure, would acknowledge that. As I said earlier, if the level of discussion and that the level of debate in this Chamber were directed at that issue, and trying to look at that in a policy's perspective, I, as one member of this House, would feel very well satisfied. I would feel that my days in this Chamber have been well spent, but I come back to this Chamber day in and day out and, as I say, we are dealing with issues, with the nuts and bolts.

To use examples would be to trivialize the situation but we are dealing with nuts and bolt issues, issues which should not necessarily be before this House. They should be before those groups: the school councils, the principals, the school boards, the health care institutions and their boards, people who are close to the action, who can do the micromanagement. Those who come to this Chamber and look for solutions to these micro-problems, I suspect, are not looking at things in the greater perspective.

The second part of that issue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few more minutes to clue up. Perhaps in what I have to say I will not be given leave for much longer.

The second part about not liking to come into this House every day, quite apart from the micromanagement that is being perceived that we should involved with here as a government, are the innuendos, the statements being made that people know are not correct but they spin them in such a way that they give an air of creditability.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, I never point to members and I never impute motives, but if there is a voice in the wilderness maybe it is finding a reason for using its voice at this point in time. I do not want to be more pointed than that.

The fact is, there are members in this Chamber who daily come before us and make statements which they know in their heart, they know in their soul, are not correct. They know that what they are saying is being said for crass political purposes. It is not being said to try to advance the issues and the agenda of the day.

I find that extremely disheartening. I would hope that all members on both sides of the House would take the issues that are before them and discuss them in a policy perspective, to look at the major issues facing the Province today, and to deal with them in a positive, forthright way.

Were the members of the Opposition coming forward day in and day out with alternate solutions, alternate approaches, I would love to sit down with members opposite to discuss that, but I will not sit down with members who travel this Province, go out and raise expectations, take issues which are not real and create a certain aura of creditability around them, and then say to me, as a member: Where were you? Why were you not sitting down with us to discuss these issues?

Recently, when we were in Corner Brook, the members were there and had their meetings, and that was fine. I went out the following day and met with the students out there, and asked the students: Where are you getting your information? What I read in the newspaper, Sir.

I read in the newspapers statements being made by members opposite that the school program in physical education, music, or something else is being taken out, wiped out.

When I talk to the school boards - which I did long before the members opposite went to Corner Brook - I did not hear those statements. There were concerns and there were issues that needed to be addressed.

It is most disheartening when the younger people in this Province are taking their information strictly from members opposite who are imputing motives, I would say, when they talk about downsizing and they talk about the lack of students in the classroom.

I know the Member for Waterford Valley looks at me and smiles, and so on and so forth. He is eager to get up. I am sure he will have lots to say, but I would hope that what he has to say is a meaningful contribution to the debate of how, in this Province, we are dealing with a declining student population on the one hand and an aging population on the other; because, while he may not be around for the year 2020 or 2030, this is one of the most difficult periods that we will ever have gone through in our history.

Having said that, I look forward to the comments from the hon. members opposite. I am sure they will enlighten me on any statements which I have made which are contrary to their perception of reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am forced to rise because of the comments by my colleague across the way. I note that the member said they were not getting into micromanaging the educational system. I tend to agree; this House is not set up to micromanage the educational process of Newfoundland and Labrador. It should not be an issue in this House that we should be deciding on how many teachers should be allocated to Herdman Collegiate, or to Brian Peckford Elementary School in Triton. However, the Minister of Education stood in her place and she said to the Opposition: Would you please go out and bring back the examples?

What we took from that is that the Minister of Education needed to be reminded that what we were saying about the effects of teacher cuts indeed reflected the reality in Newfoundland and Labrador - in particular, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I note that the hon. member gave his speech and I listened to him, but he has left the Chamber. Therefore, obviously he has no interest in listening to my reply. I want to say to the hon. member who just spoke that we met with, among other people, the chair of a school board, District 3, June Alteen, in a meeting. She is also the chair of all the school boards in Newfoundland and Labrador. This lady said certain things to us that I will communicate to this House in the next short while. We not only met with this lady but we met with some members of that school board, School District 3.

What was said in our meeting was that June Alteen, as chair of the board, is very concerned with the regional disparities throughout the Province but she is also concerned with the urban, rural difficulties that we have in teacher allocation, and how that affects the delivery of school programs. These are not my words. These are the words of the chair of School District 3 with head office in Corner Brook.

The chair of that board and two members of that board identify the disparities within their own board. We met with the representative from Cox's Cove. That member told us of the difficulty they have in carrying out school programs in Cox's Cove. What we have said here are the words of that school board representative from Cox's Cove. What the Member for Humber East rises and says is: No, that is nonsense.

What that member is doing is saying to me, as a member of this House, that what the school board representative said from Cox's Cove is not correct, is inadequate, and it does not reflect the reality.

I can only say to the member that our mission in going out and meeting with the school boards, meeting with the members of the schools boards and the chair of the school board, was to bring back to this House the words that were said.

In my rather copious notes - and I am know for taking rather meticulous notes - I have actual quotations here that I can use from every single meeting that I attended in the last two weeks.

What the chair of that board said, and what two members of the board said, let quote the words: This government is causing school boards to be pitted against school boards. They are causing zones to be pitted against zones. They are causing urban areas of this Province to be pitted against rural areas.

These are the words of the school board representatives. They are not my words. They are their words. This government is saying: No, we do not want to hear that.

I know why they do not want to hear it, because it is coming from the grass roots.

We spoke as well to the school board representative of School District 3. Let me tell you something else that was said. They said: This school board no longer has manoeuvrability or flexibility when it comes to teacher allocation.

That was said by the chair of that school board. That is what the school board said. Let me quote further: We, as a school board, cannot do further accommodation. We cannot go any further. In fact - the words here, and I am quoting from my notes from the meeting - program offerings will be compromised.

These are words that were said by the duly elected school board of School District 3.

I want to go on. When the school board was asked some months ago: What teachers do you need to deliver the courses that you are being asked to deliver? They said they were asked - school board District 3: How many teachers do you need to deliver the program? What School District 3 asked for was not the current teacher allocation. The school district asked for eighteen more teachers. Eighteen more teachers were asked for.

When they got their information back from the Minister of Education and her department, they were cut eighteen teachers. Now the school board asked for eighteen more teaching units. What they got back was eighteen fewer teacher units for a gap of thirty-six teachers. That is the gap. It is a gap of thirty-six. That is what we have here.

Herdman Collegiate, for example, will lose four teacher units and, to quote again from the school board officials: This will severely impact on school programming.

Last week my colleague, the Member for St. John's East, flew back from Corner Brook last Thursday morning on the early flight, was here in the House last Thursday afternoon, with my colleague from Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and presented a petition to this House from parents of students involved in Herdman Collegiate. When these parents came to our meeting, they said: This will negatively impact on programs.

The gap here is not eighteen teacher units. The gap here is thirty-six teaching units. In other words, they were asked what they needed and then a few days later we heard the Member for Humber East going over and saying at a rally: Well, you know, we are going to look at it. We are going to look at it, that more teaching units are needed.

The question we have is: How far will we go to what the school board wanted, which was eighteen more, and the gap between that and what they were told they would lose, eighteen less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo wants to engage in the discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education challenged the Opposition to go out and find out the information. That is what we did. We are bringing it back. Every single word that I will say in this debate comes directly from the elected board officials. It is not made up, it not conjecture, it is not something that we suddenly discovered in the wee hours of the morning. These words that I am saying here are the words of the school boards. They are the words of the elected school boards, and it is sad indeed to hear the Minister of Education say that the teachers put the kids up to making these complaints; the principal put the teachers up to making these complaints.

Mr. Speaker, the principals and the teachers out there are trying to reflect the reality. They did not put the parents or the children up to anything. It is the parent councils that are speaking. I have many more meticulous notes here.

In just reflecting on this one single meeting that I attended last Wednesday, I want to say that in School District 3 comments were made like this. In fact, I am quoting from one of the school board members who said: We are being forced to tread water just to maintain standards. We asked for an additional eighteen units and parents expect an enriched quality of education. That is what we were told when we talked about educational reform.

I note as well that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak on the Estimates. I guess I am part of a team where we have to fulfil a commitment.

I would love to be in a position where I could travel to the different communities and promise people things they are asking for, but we on this side of the House, and as a member of caucus, have to make regulations and choices. Unfortunately, we do not have the finances to fulfil all the dreams and hopes of every MHA and people across the Province.

Commitment to rural communities and rural Labrador is something that - I am proud to say I am a part of a team that has fulfilled that commitment. The words of a Premier who said: We will help those who have the least.

Today I was to travel to the riding of Torngat Mountains to officially open two new schools, a new Kindergarten to Grade XII in the community of Hopedale, and a Kindergarten to Grade XII in the community of Rigolet.

This is the first time that the community of Rigolet will have a gymnasium, something that every other school in every other part of the Province took for granted. If they never had a full size gym, they had access to a rec centre. This government made that commitment.

I look at the little community of Postsville, that in 1996 was said to be written off. Along with the Government House Leader and five other Cabinet ministers, we travelled into the community of Postsville. They told us that they wanted the opportunity to run a sawmill operation themselves. Government had tried it in the past but, because of some government red tape, it failed.

This past winter, in the little community of Postsville, we had twenty-five people working in the woods operation and right now we have eight working in the mill.

With the help of the Minister of Fisheries, we went into the community of Nain. We took our stellar plant and, from years past, we employed twenty-five people. This past year we employed 105 people. We started a new crab plant in the community of Makkovic.

This government is committed to making good choices, not promises. There are times when we look through the media to see some of the questions that have been raised by the Opposition, some of the statements they are making. I can fully understand that they have a job to do, but I think it is unfair when sometimes they put fear in the hearts of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a member over there who seemed to laugh.

You know, it is very easy when you travel into a community and go into the town hall and bluff someone, but it is different when you have to deliver. It is easy to make promises, it is easy to make accusations, but when you have to fulfil on a limited budget, then you make choices; and this government is making good choices.

I attended a high school graduation in the community of Hopedale last weekend. We had ten graduates, the highest number that ever graduated in the tiny community of Hopedale. I am told by the superintendent and by the teachers that every student, all ten, have all their courses and every student is going to graduate; none will have to repeat. In talking with the students, all ten are going on to post-secondary education.

What a gigantic step for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What a gigantic step for the riding of Torngat Mountains that, for so many years, from every level of government, still did not ask for their fair and full share. I think if any member on any side of this House were to travel into my riding and see the state of the schools and the roads that we had in the past, they too would ask: Where is the full and fair share?

It was with great disappointment this morning that I sat and wrote a fax to the community of Rigolet and Hopedale. I guess any member would feel the same sadness if you had worked and lobbied and finally delivered, and had two brand new schools that you were going to open, but because of where we live - Mr. Speaker, what other riding is there in this Province where the Premier or the local member would have to wait four or five days before they could get in? That is part of our culture; that is part of our way of life. I am proud to be a member of the government that is delivering to these communities.

I have often said that anyone who spoke for more than four or five minutes in the House ended up saying things that they do not know what they are talking about. I have spoken on my riding, and again I will say that it is good news for the people in my communities - the schools for the children.

Imagine, in 1999, the first time that children in a community will have access to a gymnasium. I think that shows the commitment of government to our education plan. Although there may be sometimes concerns and questions raised, I am sure that this government, through the minister and I, hopefully will find ways to alleviate the crises and concerns that are out there.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I can say to my colleagues on this side of the House that I am proud to be a member of this government, and I am proud to be the Member for Torngat Mountains. When I look at what we have accomplished in the last three or four years, I think it is the first time that anyone can honestly say to the people up there that we have gotten our fair and full share.

Just a point: as much as sometimes we hassle and heckle each other, I honestly believe that every member on the other side of the House as well, if they had a chance to stand and say, they are more than glad that finally the people in Torngat Mountains have gotten their schools.

Again, I thank all colleagues on my side for what we are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, for education, for the fishery, for the forestry, and trying to provide a better way for the people in these communities without causing fear.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me first of all compliment the member who just spoke, in spite of the fact that the Government House Leader is waving me down here.

I wanted to compliment the member who just spoke because, of all of the members who sit in this House, if a more direct, compassionate, sincere, district-oriented man or woman... If you list all the people who have ever served here, I think this gentleman would rank among - he would be like Abou Ben Adam. His name might lead all the rest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I compliment him because he brings a great deal of sincerity, he brings a great deal of compassion, and we on this side share in his rejoicing that the coastal communities of Labrador are getting fair and equal access to educational resources.

We know the member works very hard. We want to say to him that we on this side share in the rejoicing that he has shared with the House on the fact that his communities, the communities of Coastal Labrador, are finally getting their fair share in Confederation with Canada, and their fair share in what we call Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to return to my previous comments. I want to refer now to meetings that I had in Stephenville, School District 4. I was in Stephenville last Tuesday and met with the school board officials - not all of them, but a fair number of them - and followed up that evening with a meeting in Stephenville High School.

I want to first of all thank the members of the board and the chair of the board, Mr. Garfield Randell, for accepting the invitation we offered him to come and share with us his concerns and the board's concerns for that school district.

I have made again, meticulous notes. I am going to say something that might not be accepted by the other side but I can tell you, in the meetings that I attended, these meetings were not politically focused. As a matter of fact, in any of the meetings I attended - some of them I chaired - we deliberately stayed away from political focus. We were not there to spread the good news of the Progressive Conservative Party. We were not there to decry Liberalism or to attack the New Democratic Party. We were there purely to listen.

I would say to all hon. members, if they can go out and find any member who was at those particular meetings - parent, child, or school board member - and they can find people who would say that we were there spreading Progressive Conservatism, I would have to challenge that person to show evidence of it. The meetings were conducted in a very orderly manner. We opened up the floor, said who we were, and said we were there to listen.

For example, the meeting in Stephenville last Tuesday. It was held in the school board office, attended by the chair of the board, attended by the school board members. I made some notes as to what was said. I should point out that some members came long distances to be in Stephenville last week. The Rev. Clayton Billard came in from LaPoile or the Rose Blanche, Burnt Island area, Zone 4 in that board. He drove a long distance to be there last Tuesday, to make his presentation.

Some of the things that were said last week: School District 4 had been reorganized as much as they could possibly do it. In order words, the parents had made sacrifices by busing their children longer distances. They said: We have done that now. We agree that children are our focus and we have made those sacrifices. We have closed the schools that can be closed. While there might be some minor adjustments that we can do, we are now at the end of that road.

I bring the analogy of one school board member. He said it is like taking a pocket knife and whittling. If you keep on, just one little whittle, you do not notice the loss of the wood on the stick. Over time we have been whittling away and whittling away, and now we are left with very little of that stick. He used the analogy because we have cut back on music, we have cut back on art, we have cut back on physical education, and we have cut back on what we call the extras to the essential core program to such a point that now we have nothing else to cut, and yet that school board is asked to cut more teachers.

Mr. Speaker, at the meetings that I attended there, the school board members made it quite clear. They said: School reform is a good thing. School reform is a good thing. However, Mr. Speaker, they did say that they had some difficulties. For example, I refer back again to Rev. Clayton Billard. He said that they had lost their music, they had lost their phys. ed. years ago, their library now was not able to function in their local areas, and they were concerned about the loss of these things for their children.

Rev. Billard made the point and said there is a big gap between the services offered in his communities on the southern tip of the South Coast and those that are offered in Stephenville or those offered in Port aux Basques. His view point was that there should be some greater measures taken to ensure that children have equal access. Mr. Speaker, I admit that we will never, ever be able to ensure that a child that is living in Rose Blanche will be able to have all the services that they can have in Stephenville, Corner Brook, St. John's or Mount Pearl or that kind of thing. That cannot happen. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves: Where are the values that we place on that child's education and what can we do to narrow that gap so that each child can have reasonable access?

What Rev. Billard is saying to all of us here today, through, in this case myself, as a person who attended the meeting, is that they want to make sure that their children in those communities are not disproportionately and negatively impacted more than other children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, last week, as well, we had a presentation made to our committee from the school administrators council in Stephenville. The school administrators council came to the meeting with a written text. That written text outlined the changes that would happen in the Stephenville area. I say to the House here today, that the school administrators in that area prepared a written text which is rather lengthy, and I just wanted to name the schools that are reflected in this document:

Stephenville Middle School, with a student population of 423 students, will have a teacher reduction of one unit in September.

Assumption High School: student population of 135 to 145, teaching staff of 9.5 units, a teacher reduction of .25 in September, one-quarter of a unit.

Lourdes system: loss of 2 units for September, presently has twenty-four units, primary population of 181 and an elementary population of 180.

St. Thomas Aquinas: student population 180, staff of 12.5 units, they will reduce by one-quarter of a unit for this September.

E.A. Butler is a necessarily existent school: a different formula to staff the school, as we know, but they are also going to lose, I think it is a quarter of a unit for this September.

Our Lady of Mercy Elementary School, K-VIII: staff there of twelve now, student population of 190, a reduction of one full unit coming this September.

St. Michael's Elementary, K-VIII: present staff of twenty-two, student population of 125, there will be one teacher less in that school system in September.

Stephenville Primary, K-III school: presently have a staff of twenty-six, school population of 433, there will be a reduction of one-and-a-half units in September.

Mr. Speaker, as you note, all of these schools mentioned here are losing teachers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to finish up this particular part of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: I just want to mention, as well, the impacts.

MR. GRIMES: We wouldn't want you to get confused in what you are saying (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I doubt it, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. With my meticulous and copious notes, there is no danger that I would lose a single note or even miss a single page.

Mr. Speaker, what are the impacts in those small communities? The notes that I have here show the impacts for every single school. I could read all of them, but I will just read down through some of them. This is the pattern that is emerging.

Primary students are more liked to be exposed to four or five different teachers in one day due to a piecemeal arrangement of attempting to fit teachers into the schedules.

Mr. Speaker, in one instance, a parent and the Chair of a school council said that in her school, the school where her children will go in September, they are going to have to do subject teaching in Grade II. I have never heard tell of subject teaching in Grade II. As many as five different teachers would be teaching a Grade II class. That is so that they can continue to be able to offer some programs that some people might consider a little extra, like library, music, phys. ed., and that kind of thing. We are having primary children in Grade II being exposed to five different teachers.

Those of us who were involved in the teaching profession know that at the Grade II level, that is not a desirable thing to have happen. I do not disagree with subject teaching or music at a Grade II level being taught by a professional person. That is not what we are talking about. They are talking subject teaching for some of the core curriculum, like Language Arts and that kind of thing. Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. House, these are the written notes that I have here presented to me by the parent council.

Mr. Speaker, point number two: Basic courses designed for low numbers are now being taught with large groups, which defeats the purpose of having the course in the program. In some cases we know that there are certain courses that, by their very nature, are created for low numbers, that if you happen to go higher than a certain number, then the course loses it's effectiveness. There is not much point in bringing in a remedial reading program, if you design it for ten or twelve students and now you are going to have it, say, for twenty students at one time. That is going to happen.

It says here: Enrichment classes in courses have long since disappeared from the schools. In a meeting of eight administrators, not one could speak of an enrichment initiative that is taking place to address the needs of the above average student. Mr. Speaker, I was amazed when I went to this meeting where we had the whole Stephenville area being represented, and not one administrator could tell me about an enrichment program for a gifted student. Mr. Speaker, that is not right. These students, who are above average in ability, who have special talents, should have the right to have access to the same kinds of programs they might have if they were going to schools in St. John's or Corner Brook or Mount Pearl or wherever.

I was quite surprised, in fact I questioned them on that particular matter and they told me, the note is right, that enrichment programs have all been sacrificed so that they can keep other things in the curriculum.

Point number four: Specialty areas are being impacted in most schools. Music and physical education teachers are being required to teach in the regular classroom. The programs of music and physical education are among the first programs to be reduced, as evidenced in the note that I referred to earlier. The impact on music and physical education was noted in all of the meetings that I attended. Again I repeat to hon. members, they can put whatever spin they want to from the other side, but every single comment that I am making here represents either the comments of a school administrator or the comments that are being made by the school council representatives.

Personally, can I attest to the fact of their absolute accuracy? No, Mr. Speaker. I have never been in most of those schools. I can only attest to the fact that these notes were presented to me, in all honesty and all sincerity, and it is my duty, at the first opportunity, to bring them forward to this House and share them with hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, point number six: Technology education is an area that has brought its own problems during the past three years. The technology has grown substantially, but we have not been able to keep pace with the requirement to simply keeping the hardware up and running. It says, in one school there are over sixty computers, but there is no time allocated to anyone to handle the day-to-day problems of running three labs.

Mr. Speaker, I talked to one school principal who said to me: If I get a problem, we have two people on the whole board to look after these matters, and if we run into a problem, it may be weeks and weeks and weeks before somebody will come along and correct it. So, it is a real problem. Technology education is a fact of the school curriculum, it is a wonderful program, and I have been a strong supporter of technology education for a long time. I have a personal interest in that particular subject myself, but it is only as good as the support that you have there. If you do not have the people available to give you the support you need to correct that problems that occur from time to time - it is wonderful to have a lot of computers, but if they are not being supported by the computer support staff -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) wrap this one up.

MS M. HODDER: I thank the minister for giving me extra time, but if some member on the other side wishes to get up and make a comment, I certainly can accommodate that. I will return at a later time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise today and certainly have a few words in this debate on Estimates and Budget. You see, not only is the social fibre of our Province changing but our people are changing. They are changing in their attitude towards self-reliance, their attitude towards progression, and their attitude towards making things work for them in their communities in this Province. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a government, recognize not only the shift in economics, not only the shift in social fibre, but also the shift in attitude. In order for us to provide good, strong and stable leadership in this Province, we also have to be adaptable to that change and be able to lead these people, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing this in a number of ways. One of those ways is that we are reassessing the social fibre of our particular Province. We are looking at new social strategies and new social reform.

We have seen, Mr. Speaker, in the last two to three years, a number of things that we have done in this Province to contribute to that particular change. We have seen the rates for social assistance recipients increase, and I have to say that for a number of years prior the people in my district, on the Coast of Labrador, have always been inhibited by the rates and benefits paid out under this particular program. But this government certainly recognized that, they recognized that it had to be changed and they changed it. They made the change, investing over $500,000 extra last year into this program in order to meet the needs of people in those remote and rural areas of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Pardon? Which program was it? That was under Human Resources and Employment. It was a specific program allowing for the cost of living for families who live in isolated communities of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have also changed and geared more programs towards our young people. Our people are the visionaries of the future and they are the people we have to encourage, promote, and inspire today in order to carry on.

In the last year we have invested more than $7.5 million into youth programs alone which targeted post-secondary students, students who were coming out of colleges and universities around this Province and were looking for a break in life and an opportunity for employment.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I saw a lot of these students in my own district who came out of these particular programs and were able to go and find employment in all different sectors, and it proved very beneficial for them. They joined over 2,000 other young people in this Province who had the opportunity to avail of these particular programs.

Mr. Speaker, we also brought in another program for our young people which concentrated on student work and services, programs on which we, in the last two to three weeks, have had a number of students across this Province call us, as MHAs, and ask us: Is there funding allocated for these programs for this year? Well, it is allocated and there will be employment for those people, because it is very important that we take care of the youth of today in this Province, and that we ensure that they grow up in this Province having, not only expectation, but also being innovative, inspiring to make things happen and to carve out a niche for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, this year we were able to introduce the NewfoundJOBS Program which is a program that is going to help a lot of people in this Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is going to assist them in order to enter or re-enter the labour force. This is very important because we also have to realize that there are a lot of people out there,in our Province and in our small communities, who sometimes do not have the opportunity to avail of these programs and these services. Well, we are making it happen through these particular programs.

I want to tell you a story about one individual. It is a lady who lives in a community in my district - and she is certainly a role model for many around this Province - an individual who was on social assistance for a number of years, but because of the programs that we were able to bring in in the last two years she has moved off social assistance, she has started her own business in a small community, and she is earning a living for herself. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is what these programs are all about; people becoming self reliant. It is people looking after themselves in their own communities.

When you can move people off the social assistance program, and move women in our communities into their own businesses or into job opportunities, because the money, the assistance and the programs are there to allow them to do it, I think that is absolutely remarkable. We are going to continue to do that, because those initiatives have been successful and we have seen them work.

One of the other things, Mr. Speaker, that we did was bring in the family resource centre projects. When this particular concept was first, I guess, talked about or discussed there were a lot of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who felt they would not reap the benefits of the family resource project, they would not feel the services in their communities because they were so far removed from the larger centres in our Province. Well, that has not happened.

Under this particular program, for the first time ever, we are going to have centres in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that are going to deliver these services to families and to children, and, Mr. Speaker, four of these are in my own district. With one main centre and three satellite centres we are going to be able to develop and deliver programs for families, for children, and for youth that we have not had the resources and the opportunity to do so before.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to add that under this program it is a locally driven initiative. It is the people in the community, whether it be the social workers, the concerned citizens' committees or the ordinary people who deal with youth groups and so on, who are actually making the guidelines and the terms under which these centres will be developed. Every region will take this initiative and they will adapt it to what is needed in their particular communities.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing we are doing to build and re-access the social basis of our economy. As we all know, in order for us to have good economic and stable development in this Province, we also need to have a strong social foundation. We achieved that, Mr. Speaker, by investing into our weakest areas in investing into our weakest people. That is what this government has been doing. We have done it through the regular assistance, we have done it through additional living allowances, we have done it through youth programs and initiatives, we have done it through opportunities for people with disabilities, we have done it through the family resource centre programs, we have done it through the NewfoundJOBS Program, we have done it through the student worker programs, and, Mr. Speaker, it just goes on and on and on. In order for us to achieve and strive for maximum economic benefit, we have to be able to, first of all, stabilize the social foundation of this Province; and that is exactly what we are doing.

None of us has eluded to the fact that we have suffered some very challenging times since 1992. I can tell you first-hand, that I have seen it in my district. Since 1992 I have seen the face of entire communities change with the cod moratorium, and I know how important it is to build the social foundation out of a lot of these rural communities. Mr. Speaker, not only were they devastated when the fishery closed, a lot of them had given up hope for anything in the future.

It is our job, as a government, Mr. Speaker, to instill hope back into these people, to allow them to rebuild their communities, to allow them to carry on in this Province and earn opportunity for themselves and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in the House a few days ago I heard one of the members who got up basically alluded to the fact that a lot of out-migration taking place in this Province was due to the fact that we were buying back licences from people who were in the fishery, and I took great exception to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MS JONES: The Member for Lewisporte, I think it was.

I took great exception to that, Mr. Speaker, because I was one of the people from this House and one of the people in this Province who fought very, very hard to earn early retirement benefits for our fisherpeople.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We felt, Mr. Speaker, that they more than deserved these benefits; they had worked very hard in this industry in our Province. We all know the difficultly it was and how harsh it was to earn a living in this industry. We really felt that they deserved it, and believe me, if there could have been more given to them, they would have gotten more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fifty-five, remember.

MS JONES: Yes. If we could have put more people on this program, Mr. Speaker, we would have put them on this program, because we believe that they truly, truly deserved it, and we certainly do not see it as being a contributing factor to the future economic development of this particular Province, because it certainly is not. Anyone who can make that assumption, or certainly allude to that particular fact, is missing the entire point of what we have done for the fisherpeople in terms of allowing them to have an early retirement program or a buy-back program.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments on some of the things that have been taking place in my district in particular.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS JONES: Nobody seems to mind.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of the things that are happening in my district in particular. Most of you already know that one of the largest developments we are going to see in highway construction in this Province in the next couple of years is going to occur in Labrador.

It was certainly a dream come true, definitely, when the Trans-Labrador Highway was announced for the communities from Red Bay to Cartwright along the Southeast Coast of Labrador. For twenty-odd years the people in those communities have been lobbying day in and day out, year in and year out, through every particular avenue that they had available to them in order to see this development come to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I had the distinct honour, in the community where I grew up, in the gymnasium in which I graduated, to stand and tell the people of these communities that finally, twenty years later, you are going to have a highway development. I can tell you it was a feeling that I would say you seldom ever feel in political life.

When you look out in a room of 400 or 500 people, and you watch them with tears in their eyes over the excitement and happiness to have achieved this particular point that they are at, it is something, I am going to tell you, that is worth being in this particular business for.

MR. REID: They do not want to hear it over there it; not one of them.

MS JONES: Well, they could learn something if they pay attention. They could learn that not everything comes easy. Some things you have to work awfully hard for.

I am going to tell you, this one particular development that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I am hoping.

This is one particular development, Mr. Speaker, that is not only going to contribute to the economic impacts in those particular communities, but it is going to contribute to the economic impacts in this entire Province.

The first tender, Mr. Speaker, closed just a couple of days ago, the first of six tenders on this particular development with over eight companies from around this Province competing for work on those sections of road.

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an economic boost for all people in this Province. It is not only going to provide the necessary transportation link for these communities in order to ensure the survival and sustainability of their industries and their communities, but it is also going to contribute economically to this Province as a whole. It is going to contribute to the construction industry in a way that we have not seen for some time.

Mr. Speaker, this year we will proceed with six particular contracts on this section of road. We will cover anywhere from 100 to 150 kilometres of road in this particular period of time. It will provide tremendous economic benefits for the people in those communities. Already we have advertised something like forty-eight positions just through the department alone for employment in that particular area.

I cannot stress enough the actual significance that this particular development is going to have in my particular district. We are looking much further ahead. We see the Trans-Labrador Highway as a stepping stone in linking the communities along the Southeast Coast of Labrador. But we are going to take transportation initiatives a whole lot further in this Province and in Labrador in particular. Mr. Speaker, I talk of the other sections of road, that hopefully some day we will link all of Labrador, making us a fully united territory in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as many have heard me say, time and time again, I also look forward to the day when we will link Newfoundland and Labrador as one Province, building the tunnel across the Strait of Belle Isle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It is definitely the vision for future transportation needs in this Province, by far. It is one that has been discussed and talked about for some time, but never to the point of seriousness. I think we have to look at it as a Province at this particular time in our history.

When we have the development of the Lower Churchill that hopefully will move ahead on schedule by 2001 or 2002, whatever the schedule is right now, when we look at a development like that and the possibility that we could bring this transmission line from Labrador right across the Island, under the Strait of Belle Isle, Mr. Speaker, leave no doubt that we also have to look at the future transportation of linking this entire Province, because it is and must be considered in order to ensure the long-term benefit of our Province as a part of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks because I am sure there are many people in this House who have many points that they want to make today, but before I do, I just want to talk a little bit about technology. Information technology is a growing sector in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, surprisingly. I say surprisingly because most people would look at the IT sector as being a more urban dominated industry, but, Mr. Speaker, you know it is not. What we have seen is wireless telecommunications launched in this country. Where has it been launched? In our Province, in remote communities of Labrador, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, in Nain and in Forteau. We have some of the most sophisticated technology that has ever been used in this country to date.

Mr. Speaker, we are enabling people in rural communities across this Province to not only use vocal telecommunications, but visual as well; whereby they can sit in Toronto, or in Massachusetts and in Nain and discuss the Voisey's Bay project through telecommunications. You can sit in Forteau and you can do business with any part of this world because the technology is there to enable us to do it.

I think the IT sector is one of fastest growing industries that we have in rural Newfoundland and Labrador right now. I can tell you that just last year alone there was $309,000 committed to a three-year information technology development initiative in my particular district to service the five Labrador zones. This project, Mr. Speaker, although it has a minimal staff requirement, services a lot of people in the health care sector, in the education sector, in the business development sector, and it is allowing us in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador to be competitive in a very global market. I think that is a tremendous benefit, one that we have attained with a great deal of success, I might add.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, through negotiations and lobby with Industry Canada and the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, we were able to put eleven new (inaudible), in excess of $200,000, on the Coast of Labrador. Where did we put it? We put it into the schools, so that our children in the school system could avail of this technology, as well as the people in the community.

You know, Mr. Speaker, every one of those sites were staffed last year. They had full-time staff. They were providing services to x number of businesses in the communities, and they were allowing students in schools to access courses through distant education programs and so on.

I am very proud to say that there was students across my district who did a lot of courses through distance ed. last year, not because they had to, but because they wanted to; especially in physics and chemistry and those programs. They did fairly well. They were graded, I guess, in terms of how everybody in the Province was doing. They did a tremendous job.

I know that I have probably gone on a little bit long, but I have been assured that what I am saying is making a tremendous amount of sense. That is why I think it is important that before I sit down I should touch on the tourism sector just a little bit.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, my district, in the last two years running, and I know this year it is not going to be any different, we have been the leaders in tourism growth in this Province, growing at 20 to 25 per cent annually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I can tell you, without a doubt - I am going to tell you something, when you do what I have had to do this week, you soon learn that we are really making progress in this Province and in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular.

Mr. Speaker, do you know something? Two days ago, I had to sit down to discuss a new ferry service for my district because we have expanded so much in the tourism industry, we are outgrowing the ferry service. It is unbelievable! The only dilemma we have now is if we will go with a mega ferry or two ferries. Now that is quite a dilemma to be in, Mr. Speaker.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the next day I had to go and discuss how big we are going to build a port facility in my district to accommodate the growing transshipment to the north and right into Baffin Island. Isn't that terrible, terrible what you have to do in a day?

In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I am very serious. If I had $25 million right now I would build that ferry. I am very serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: What? Mary and I are going to see what we can do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everybody in Cabinet agrees with you.

MS JONES: Is that right? Oh, they all agree.

I am quite serious, though, I say to the Member for Labrador West. Tourism is growing so rapidly in my district right now that we are having to assess infrastructure. This year alone we have booked 138 bus tours into the Labrador Straits, that are overnight bus tours. That is at least a 10 per cent to 15 per cent increase over last year, and that is not even considering the buses that come and go on a daily basis without bookings. That is how rapidly the industry is growing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Exactly.

Then, when you take into consideration the Viking Millennium, which is scheduled for the Northern Peninsula - face it, next year we are expecting tremendous growth in Western Newfoundland and Labrador with the Viking Millennium. We have to be prepared for it because, I tell you, the tourism industry in that part of the Province has taken off in a way that nobody had anticipated.

Then you have to look at the development of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Look at the contribution that this is going to make to the tourism industry in this Province. We are opening up one of the last frontiers in Northern Canada, and we are opening it up for the rest of the world to come and see and look and live and be a part of what we are doing. All of those aspects are going to contribute greatly to tourism in the area.

I just want to note as well, Mr. Speaker, that one of the few areas in this Province that has been designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site is now in the community of Red Bay. It is a national historic site and now it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and we are very proud of that. We also have one of the only national historic districts, I think, in the entire Province, and that is in Battle Harbour.

We have done a tremendous job in building our product, building it and selling it to the rest of the world, and having been recognized nationally and internationally for the contribution that we have made in this world through out lasting culture and heritage. These things have become remarkable tools for tourism and this is why we are attracting so many people to our particular area.

I think I will conclude my remarks right now by saying basically that I feel, in this Province, and as a government, we have contributed immensely to social reform and to rebuilding the social fibres of this Province but we have also committed greatly to economic reform. I think we have allowed the people in this Province to be more accountable in terms of not always making government accountable but being accountable themselves as citizens and as business people. I think we have forced the people of this Province to be innovative thinkers, to look at the future and to look at opportunity.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you go around this Province right now and into rural Newfoundland and Labrador you will see the creativity that these people have in business development, in marketing themselves, and in attracting people to where it is they are. I think we have done a tremendous job in changing the attitude from one of being - I don't know how to say this but we have changed the attitudes of people in this Province. We have allowed them to be more creative, to be more innovative, and it will actually blow your mind when you go into some of these small communities and see what it is they are actually doing to earn a living and to be able to bring prosperity to their community.

I have seen a lot of communities in this Province - and a lot of them are in my own district - which, in 1992, were so devastated, disheartened and down, they never thought they would crawl back up out of it. But they have crawled back up and they are making things happen, and this year we are going to be able to connect these communities through a road and allow them to continue to grow, develop, and foster the benefits of the resources they reap in those communities. I think that is what governing is all about.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I tell you, it is going to be really bad. I am looking for the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: She is not normally like that.

MS S. OSBORNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Normally pleasant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) writes Tom's speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tom writes your speeches.

MS S. OSBORNE: Tom wrote this one for me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I had some questions, actually, for the President of Treasury Board. but while I am waiting for her to come back I will talk about my district again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Terra Nova.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I won't bother the Member for Terra Nova.

I would like to refer to a sentence here in the Throne Speech. "My Government is implementing many initiatives in keeping with the Strategic Social Plan, notably education reform, the redesign of income support, measures to combat child poverty, and child, youth and family services legislation focusing on prevention and early intervention."

It is the child poverty part that I would like to talk about today. This is in reference to a person who lives in my district. She has four children, one of whom is thirteen years old and has Down's Syndrome. This woman is on social assistance. Her boy who has Down's Syndrome is not toilet trained. This woman's washer broke down, so she called social services and asked if she could get a washer. They said: No, we do not provide for washers. This is a thirteen-year-old boy who wears jeans and all these things that are hard to wash; and, of course, you have the bed sheets, quilts, bedspreads, and everything like that. Thirteen years old and not toilet trained. They could not provide a washer.

She called me and I called the social worker, or her financial assistance officer, and asked if we could have a washer for this woman. She said: No, I told that woman the only way she could get a washer is if her health was bad. Other than that, she has to either: (a) go to the laundromat; or (b) wash the clothes by hand.

I found it incomprehensible, unconscionable, that this woman who has three children, one who is a thirteen-year-old boy who has Down's Syndrome, who is not toilet trained, and a washer could not be provided.

It took us two months of badgering and going all the way up the line in the Department of Human Resources to get $300 towards a washer for that woman.

This is just an example. I am thinking, there must be many other people out there in that situation. We did eventually get $300.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I was talking about a woman who lives in my district who has three children, one of whom is a thirteen-year-old boy who isn't toilet trained. He wets to bed, he wets his clothes, and messes them by day. She called her FAO and asked for a washer. Her washer broke down and she could not afford to buy another one because social assistance payments are bare bones anyway. She asked for a washer and they said, no, as long as she was healthy enough to wash clothes by hand she would either have to do that or go the laundromat.

There wasn't an appeal process in place for that. It took about two months of badgering and going all the way up the line in the department to finally get $300 for that woman to get a washer. Eventually she got it, but it was because we took the initiative and fought for it.

I am wondering how many more people are out there in that situation. This is not just child poverty. I suppose there is such a thing as child poverty, when children live in poverty, but when the family lives in poverty it is all poverty; it is all-encompassing.

This same woman asked for respite so she could get out of the house sometimes. One of her children is sixteen years old. Although the social worker recommended that she should have respite, for her own well-being, respite was turned down. We still have not gotten respite for her to be able to leave the house in the evening unless she leaves her sixteen-year-old boy to take care of this thirteen-year-old boy. What kind of responsibility are we putting on the sixteen-year-old lad when we are leaving him in the care of a thirteen-year-old boy who, like I said, messes his clothes and things like that and we cannot get respite services for this woman?

It is all very good to put things that look good in the Speech from the Throne. It is good to come out with the Strategic Social Plan that says we are on the right road. We are on the right road, I suppose, in that we are having hearings and we are having committee meetings, and we have this Strategic Social Policy Committee and things like that, but we already know that people live in poverty.

We already know that. These things are basic, down-to-earth. We already know that people live in poverty, and why they have to fight and grovel for something as menial -

MR. T. OSBORNE: That fact has been studied to death.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, it has been studied to death. Poverty has been studied to death.

While this woman was kneeling over the bathtub trying to wash jeans, wash sheets, and wash bedclothes for her son - he could not help it - we were fighting for about two months to get a washer for that woman. How many more women like that, single moms, are out there in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador living under such conditions because, at entry level, the financial assistance officers do not have the authority to make a judgement call. It has to go up the line, and continuously on up.

When the picture was drawn, would you like to kneel on the bathroom floor every day and wash clothes for this lad - his jeans - and try to wring them out? Boy, it would not be long before you would qualify because you did have a health problem, because your hands would be pretty sore and your back would be pretty gone. However, that is an example of just one person.

I have another child who lives in my district. He is three-and-a-half years old. He has Attention Deficit Disorder and he also has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. His mom is not rearing him because of her unfortunate circumstance with alcoholism. His grandmother is raising him, and doing a good job of it. She asked to get him one-on-one daycare and his social worker and some specialists at the Janeway - not the FAO but the social worker - examined the case and they saw the child and said, yes, he indeed, because of his condition, did qualify for one-on-one daycare. It was turned down, financially turned down.

Last spring, I remember the Minister of Health and Community Services stood in this House and announced a subsidized daycare program. We have this little boy, who is three-and-a-half years old - the daycare he is in, because he does not have one-on-one - he is threatening to be expelled from daycare.

Now, I have some notes here from a report. It is called Reversing the Real Brain Drain by Margaret McCain and Fraser Mustard. Fraser Mustard is one of the world renowned psychologists. The report states, "development in the period from conception to 6 years sets a base for learning, behaviour and health over the life cycle."

Here we have this three-year-old person. If we cannot intervene now, and if he is suspended or expelled from this daycare at the age of three-and-a-half because of his disorder, and we cannot get him one-on-one care, I am just wondering where we are heading.

"The real brain drain in the loss society will suffer if we fail to ensure that the necessary investments are made in the early years, with the result that too many young people will not achieve their potential. We are all better off when as many people as possible are able to live productive and healthy lives."

It is all very well to get up and make announcements here in the House of Assembly, but if we cannot put out money where these good words are then the people of our Province continue to live in poverty, not just child poverty but adult poverty, and abject hardship, I suggest to this House.

That is all I have to say on that particular issue right now. I would like to address my question to the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I have a little question for you. It is really tough. It is on page 25 and it has to be with the Women's Policy Office, 2.8.01.01, Salaries. The revised Salaries for 1998-1999 was $348,000 and it is down to $309,300. I am just wondering, is this the loss of a position?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Well, I will ask a bunch and you can answer them all together.

On line 05, Professional Services, in 1998-1999 the budget was $82,600; it was revised down to $40,000 and back up to $81,100. What services were not used, and what will be used with the $81,100?

Under 2.8.02.10 Grants and Subsidies for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, in 1998-1999 it was $203,800 and now - it is not down by much, just $2,600. It is down to $201,200. I am wondering what the reason is for that decrease.

I would also like to ask the hon. President of Treasury Board if she has any answers for the Opening Doors questions that I asked her earlier in the week?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I already gave those answers earlier last week for the Opening Doors - the questions that you asked. They would be in Hansard, so they are okay.

The question that you asked about the Women's Policy Office, 2.8.01.01, Salaries, $317,500 forecasted and revised in mid-year to be $348,000. That covered the cost of seven permanent and one temporary position, and that salary now has been reduced to $309,300. I will find out that specific information for you, if the numbers are projected to be the same. Seven positions have actually been approved for 1999-2000, so I would assume the temporary position was temporary in nature but I will confirm that for you.

The other one you asked about was the Professional Services. There was a budget of $82,600, but in actual fact only $40,000 of that budget was used. That would be related to the fact that if there was a special project under way, and extra expertise was required, that is the reason we would have needed to use up that $82,000 budget. It appears to me that particular project did not take place, and it is now in the budget for this coming year. However, I will confirm that for you.

The next one is 2.8.02, Provincial Advisory Council for Women's Policy. There is very little difference in that particular grant. Yes, it was budgeted for $203,800 and actually the same was amount used. We have now reduced that to $201,200.

I think what is important there is that the Women's Policy Office was actually budgeted for $586,900 altogether but they only used $564,500, so we are looking at estimating $484,000 for this upcoming year. It is all issue related generally. If there is a special project under way then they can come and ask for revised funding but, based on what they used over the past year, that was take into account for making up this year's new estimates.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will refer to my prepared notes here. I understand we are debating Concurrence so I am going to talk a little bit about resources.

One of the items that I have talked about many times in this House is resources. When you look at the commitment that government has stated very strongly over the past couple of days again, that we are going to be very firm with Inco, that is good to hear. That is good to hear, but the question is: Why haven't we seen that with IOC in Labrador? We wonder why the Premier did not take such a strong stand on IOC. Why did we see the iron ore shipped across the border to Sept-Iles, Quebec? That is the question.

If we are taking such a strong stand with Inco, and Inco can say very, very firmly that the reason they cannot build a smelter is because it is not as profitable to smelt the ore in Newfoundland as elsewhere, we say: Well, if it is profitable at all, it has to be done here so that we receive maximum benefits.

I agree with that. I agree that we should receive maximum benefits, but if we can take that stand with Inco and say that we have to ensure that we receive maximum benefits from our nickel resources in this Province, maximum jobs, maximum royalties, then why have we not taken that stand with IOC? Why have we allowed IOC - because, while it is profitable to pelletize the ore in Labrador, it is not as profitable as pelletizing the ore in Quebec. So why have we allowed IOC to ship this ore across the border when it would have been profitable - maybe not as profitable but it would have been profitable - to pelletize the ore in Labrador, giving more jobs to Newfoundlanders, giving more royalties to the Province?

We do not have to look too far to see other resources the same way. We look at our water resources. Government have said very strongly that they are -

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I knew he would be up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe - because I am very interested in the point made by the hon. Member for St. John's South - he might describe how, if he were the government, he would have made the Iron Ore Company of Canada make it different? How would he have actually made them make a different decision? How would he have forced them to make a different investment decision than they did? I am interested (inaudible). He mentioned a part of it but did not tell us what the solution is. Could he tell us the solution?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, I am surprised that the Minister of Mines and Energy got up. I am surprised he got up on a point of order. It is very unlike him to get up and interrupt somebody else when they are speaking when he can have ten minutes, in just a short period of time, to stand up himself. It is very unlike him to do such a thing. I am surprised he did it.

I will give him the answer. As a matter of fact, we are going to give him the answer, and it will not be very long before he will be able to question us on why we have put in place the measures we did to get maximum benefits. I welcome that day, when he can stand on this side of the House and ask us how we came up with such an ingenious idea that they have overlooked. We will give them that chance because we are going to put it in place. It will not be too long before we will put in place the policies in this Province to make sure that the people of Labrador West get maximum jobs from their resources, that the people of this Province get maximum benefits, maximum royalties, maximum jobs from their resources.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Sit down, boy. Don't be so foolish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting that he has a workable answer but he would rather leave the people of Labrador West without a solution for another fifty to 100 years while they are waiting to become the government, rather than tell us today? I challenge him to take me up on this. If he can tell me a workable solution right now, we will enact it tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: Or does he want the people in Labrador West to wait for another fifteen, twenty, or thirty years before they can tell us what they are going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the workable solution is coming, and it started with the Member for Labrador West. The people of this Province are getting wise to that side of the House. It is too bad they were not as wise on February 9 as they are today, because if we were to hold an election today I am sure that those members would not be sitting on that side of the House. Very few of them would return, and would be sitting on this side of the House. That member knows it and this member knows it.

The same solution, the same response that we gave to Inco on the smelter in Argentia, or wherever they are going to put it, is the same solution that we can find for IOC. It may not have been as profitable to process our resources in this Province as it would have been to process them in Quebec, but they said it was still profitable - not as profitable.

For the benefit of the company, we were told that we had to allow them to process it in Sept-Iles, Quebec. Well, that is not good enough. We have to see maximum benefits for our resources. We have given them the solution on our water. We have given them the solution on our water resources and they would not listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Listen to the Premier wannabe over there. Get up in your seat if you want to talk.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard government refuse to listen to our solution on the water resources. Instead of shipping it out in bulk, like we did with our fish, to be processed elsewhere and sent back into this Province in bottles -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, instead of listening to our solution on water, to have it bottled, labelled, packaged and processed here to give maximum benefits to the people of this Province, we see government fight to ship it out in bulk, to send it out in tankers, so that it can be bottled somewhere else and sent back here. We would be buying our own water in bottles like we bought fish sticks from Boston.

We gave them the solution on water and they would not listen. We gave them the solution in our policy book on tax reductions. They laughed during the election. Last week we saw them get up and say: The Tories had a great idea, tax reductions, I think we are going to listen.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again I am really puzzled by the fact that the hon. member suggests that he has a solution for Labrador West with respect to concentrate versus pellets but he is now saying to us that he will not give us the answer, because even if a real fluke were to happen -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: This is serious, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Even if a real fluke were to happen and they were to form the government even in four years time, by that time the pellet plant will be activated in Sept-Iles and it will be too late to change it. If he wants it changed, the challenge is tell me the answer today and we will put it in place tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

There is no point or order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Another courteous interruption by Inspector Cluseau and his sidekick the Pink Panther. If the inspector wanted to look hard enough, he would find the answer. If he wanted to investigate hard enough, he would find the answer because the answer is there. If he wanted to investigate it hard enough, he would find the answer. It is very obvious what the answer is: If it is our resource, process it in this Province. Give maximum benefits to the people of this Province, maximum jobs, maximum royalties. You are doing it with Inco. Inco are saying the same thing that IOC said: It is not as profitable to do it in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am highly insulted by the minister's language in this House. I am highly insulted by his arrogance and interruptions, his language.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: You cannot get anything by the Pink Panther, I say to the Speaker. There is no fooling him and the inspector.

I am going to come back to this debate, but I have been asked by the House Leader to adjourn for supper. I am going to get back to this debate, and I look forward to it, shortly after the supper break. I am adjourning debate.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think we have agreed -

Did the hon. gentleman adjourn the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: He did, yes.

MR. TULK: I think we have agreed that we will come back at 7:00 p.m. At that time, I believe, we will be ready to put the vote on the Estimates or a couple or three minutes after that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House is now recessed until 7:00 p.m.


 

May 20, 1999             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIV  No. 28A


[Continuation of sitting]

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Are we ready for the question on the Resource Committee's report, or the three committees?

Is it the pleasure of the House to concur the reports of the Government Services Committee, the Resource Committee, and the Social Services Committee?

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Aye'.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Speech debate. We are on the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Of course I stand in my place today to support the amendment put forward, non-confidence, no confidence in the Budget at all, none whatsoever, and no confidence in the government either. I do not expect too many on this side of the House would have any.

I know I cannot refer to members not in the House, but there are a few I had hoped would be here tonight, because the other day when I was on my feet speaking about the Budget there was an indication of non-confidence in the Premier on that side of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: You just cannot say he is not here, but you are allowed to talk about members.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, we are allowed to talk about members (inaudible).

There was an indication of non-confidence, on that side of the House, of the Premier.

This brown envelope, as I said earlier, was delivered to me. I said I was going to do a bit of investigation on this, the lame duck premier. I did some investigation, I completed some investigation, and I am sorry to say that I really cannot name that person tonight because that person is not in the House tonight.

When I took this up, just to tell you what is going on, there was one minister who was right to his feet, two arms up in the sky, washed his hands of it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I have to say to the hon. gentleman that this crime is so dastardly that if he wishes to stand up and name the person, we shall give him 100 per cent leave. We want to find out the person who would be so traitorous to our Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I did a little bit of investigation on this. We often watch these police detective shows on television when someone signs a piece of paper and underneath there is the print. On this here, look, two areas that I had shaded in pencil in grey. On one side of the page there is a big L. Right there, look, see that L? You can see it.

I thought I had the person and then I saw another imprint, an R on the other side. Who is supposed to be the number one contestant for the leadership? I wonder. I am going to get to the bottom of this. There are only a few on that side of the House beginning with R. Roger could be one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: Robert.

MR. J. BYRNE: Could be Robert, but I do not know if there are any Roberts on that side who are ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, that is right, the Member for Humber East could be the sandbagger. I am not going to say any more about this tonight.

I am going to get on a different topic now that is just as important. In this House of Assembly over the past little while we have talked about ministers who have their head in the sand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ostriches.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ostriches. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo - ostrich. He does not know what true words he just spoke.

I have had discussions on this with many people across the Province, in my district, members in this House of Assembly, and on this side of the House. As a matter of fact it was brought up - I say that the Government House Leader should listen to this. This is of very particular interest to the Government House Leader and he should pay particular attention to this.

Now, the ostrich... We have different ministers over there. We have often heard tell of the Academy Awards. We have heard tell of the Juno awards, the Country Music Awards, but the people in the Province who spoke to me wanted a new award. We came up with one - the ostrich award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, there were very many nominations for this award and there were four ministers nominated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four?

MR. J. BYRNE: Four nominees. There were many, many recommended - four nominees.

The first nominee, of course, and I am sorry - the Minister of Fisheries was the first nominee. He was the first one. The committee looked at the Minister of Fisheries. He had a lot of qualifications, but...

Then there was the Minister of Health, a prime candidate. She does not know what is on the go with respect to health care in the Province. She does not know. The Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader here, asks question after question after question to the Minister of Health and she cannot give answers. She cannot.

That is two. There is one other minister that I really do not want to mention [Irene, this is where the break occurs.] To be fair, because that person supported me in the last election, she is a constituent of mine, but to be fair, the Minister of Education has had a rough time of it over the past little while. We saw the panel tonight giving her a hard time. We know the people in the Province are giving her a hard time. The critic for Education is giving her a hard time. To be honest with you, I like the Minister of Education. I do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: She supports me. She told me she supported me in the last election.

The last one now - there are many, many other people who can be nominated. The Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Education, received high recommendations for the award. I have not told you who won it yet, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the criteria, (inaudible) head in the sand?

MR. J. BYRNE: The head had to be buried the deepest in the sand - who does not know what is going on within their department, who does not know what is going on within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Education was highly recommended.

There were a few other backbenchers. The Member for Bellevue and the Member for Humber East were other ones. They did not come near the qualifications, but the fourth minister nominated - and really I do not know - does anybody have any idea who the fourth minister would be?

MR. SULLIVAN: Industry, Trade and Technology?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not Industry, Trade and Technology.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tourism?

MR. J. BYRNE: Not the Minister of Tourism, no.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is he here?

MR. J. BYRNE: He is here.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: He was nominated because he does not know what is going on in rural Newfoundland.

I am going to read the award. I have not said who got the award yet. I have not read it yet, so I am going to read the award.

There is a picture of an ostrich with the head in the sand and it says: The Ostrich Award 1999 for the minister in Tobin's administration who has his or her head lowered deepest in the sand. Certificate presented to the hon. Beaton Tulk.

I want the Page to bring this over to the minister. The award goes to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is his name on it?

MR. J. BYRNE: His name is on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

MR. J. BYRNE: I will give leave to the minister if he wants to respond, but I have to get back on my feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Cabinet, the Premier.

MR. J. BYRNE: I understand he would like to thank the Premier. He would like to thank his parents. He would like to thank the people who voted for him, and he mostly wants to thank the other nominees, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Fisheries -

MR. TULK: I am speechless.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are speechless.

Anyway, I thought that was only fitting because we all know on this side of the House that there are very few members on that side of the House who know what is going on in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today.

I was on my feet the other day asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs questions regarding municipal assessments. He got up and tried to be cute, tried to be smart - which is very difficult for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but he tried to be - and he could not answer the questions. He jumped around, danced around, and tried to be smart and cute.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, not bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to be there, to be honest with you.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs could not answer the questions. I do not think he understood the questions. I tried to make them as simple as I could so he could understand them, but no.

The municipal assessment division at Municipal Affairs was basically - twenty-five people were let go. Some were hired back with the new assessment agency, at a lower salary of course. The problem was - we have a letter here from the Town of St. Mary's saying what their concerns were. The concern was this: that in due course, when the government subsidy runs out this year, because they were given $3 million over the past three years, so obviously when that money runs out the municipal assessment agency is going to be in dire straits. What I asked the minister was: Are there any safeguards built into this agency that the smaller, rural towns in Newfoundland will not be impacted negatively by rate increases per property assessments. Fair enough question. The municipalities are asking it.

The minister got up and said the Federation of Municipalities supported this. Maybe they did, but there are a good many smaller towns out there that are not a part of the Federation of Municipalities, and I would say municipalities within the federation that have major concerns with respect to this issue.

When the time comes that these rates are going to have to increase to make this assessment agency self-sufficient - I suppose that is the right word - then what will happen to those smaller municipalities?

We know that the smaller towns are having trouble collecting their property taxes because of out-migration. Take the Town of Trepassey, for example: 1,500 people up there a few years ago and now they are down to 700 or 800 - I think that is correct - people selling their houses off for $3,000, $4,000, or $5,000. The property assessments have not come down. Who is going to pay the bill?

In turn, if the municipalities cannot collect their taxes, how are they going to get the revenues to pay their assessments? The minister just walked in, and I am glad to see him here now. How will they get the money to pay these assessments to this municipal assessment agency?

The minister can say what he wants, but the problems is that in due course this reality will strike and then we will have a situation where these towns will be forced to try and, I suppose, get new ways to pay the assessment agency.

I asked the minister: Would this municipal taxation agency be permitted to intercept the municipal operating grants as the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation can do today? He said: No, they were not asked, it will not happen, it will not be intercepted.

I hope, because it is in Hansard today from the questions asked the other day, that will not be the case. Because if that is the case and this municipal agency or the government will intercept the MOGs on behalf of the municipal taxation agency, well then all that is happening is that the government is becoming a collection agency for the new Municipal Assessment Agency. That was not the plan in the beginning.

When I was mayor of a small town, I did have problems with the municipal assessments because the assessments were supposed to be done, I think, every three years. There was one time that the assessments took eight years to be completed. In turn, of course, that affected the revenues that the municipality could collect. That was happening all over the Province. This was supposed to speed up the assessments, have them done on time on a regular basis. It is still not happening from what I can understand. The minister can speak to this if he wants.

That is an issue that we brought up here in the debates. It was an issue that come up in the Estimates Committee hearings or meetings. The Member for Bellevue at the time had concerns with some of the questions I was asking. I told the Member for Bellevue and the minister that I would ask the questions in the House, and I did. The minister knew then that the Member for Bellevue did not do him any favours in the Estimates Committee meetings. He did not do him any favours. The minister even said it there at the time. The Member for Bellevue was trying to be cute. Recently, in the House of Assembly, he must be taking lessons from the Minister of Mines and Energy. He has to be. He was up and down like the minister was with the nurses here before Easter. He must have been taking lessons. He did not accomplish much, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) silenced the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) silenced the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible). Can you believe what you just heard, Mr. Speaker? That he silenced the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. How childish, immature and simpleminded can a member be to make that statement? I did not see the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne being quiet. He was up today asking questions of the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He cannot control that. If you had to give us another half hour for Question Period, I say, Mr. Speaker, no problem, there would be all kinds of questions on this side of the House.

This Budget that we are discussing and the reason why I cannot support it - and that why we have a motion of non-confidence in the Budget - is because it is the same thing over and over again. We have seen it for six years. The minister was in the paper. The minister stood and said we had a $134 million surplus and he is going to take $130 million and put it on what we owe, and then we would have a $4 million surplus. What did he say? They have $30 million there for a contingency fund, a slush fund to spend each over the past few years. No. So in actual fact there was a $34 million surplus.

That leads me to this. What about the nurses who are looking for a fair and reasonable increase? They had the money to do it. We see the nurses leaving in droves and the Minister of Health does not want to do anything about it. The doctors are leaving in droves now and it is getting worse by the day. We heard about the different health boards talking about the nurses and the doctors leaving and nothing being done to stop it. If they are looking for where the money is, we have $34 million right there. There is no problem at all.

I am glad to see the Minister of Education is coming around to our way of thinking. We have the Minister of Finance doing it with taxation, we have the Premier talking about it with taxation, we have the Minister of Education doing it, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is starting to listen. When the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was standing today answering a question I was quite surprised.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) impressed.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, pleased, Mr. Speaker, because of the way he responded to my questions. He congratulated me basically and he was saying they were good questions. I made a comment and he was so - what is the right word? - receptive, I suppose, and thankful. I had to wonder what was going on here. Compared to the questions I asked the other day and he answered, he went right on the attack. Then he got up today -

AN HON. MEMBER: He even declined to pontificate.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he declined to pontificate today, Mr. Speaker. My question was this. The first thing that came to mind is this: What is happening here? Something is going on behind the scenes. We are after hitting a nerve here. He is too quiet. There is something on the go. I am looking forward, because the minister told me today he could not answer my questions. I can understand that because the questions I asked - there is an underlying current there within that division. I will not go too far into it tonight. It has been going on for the past few years now, I would say to the minister. I am giving him a good hint now. I hope he is listening with respect to that issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Like the beagle. No, do not tell me that. We do not have another `legal beagle' here in the House. I sincerely hope not.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of debate on this Budget from this side of the House. I am sure we are going to hear more tonight. My time is almost up now. I know there are members on this side of the House who are itching to get on their feet and make some good points like I have made here tonight, like I made on previous occasions when I was in the House speaking on this Budget.

Usually when I am on my feet - and I do not know what is happening here tonight, I really do not know. I do not know if there is a plan afoot on that side of the House, but they are awfully quiet.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are listening to you.

MR. J. BYRNE: They are listening to me, but they are usually so vocal when I am on my feet.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Education said that we have to listen. She is a constituent of mine and she wants to learn something. I know she is a member of the House, and she is a minister of the House, but she wants to learn something from me tonight. I hope she is listening and I hope she is learning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The members on that side of the House are very quiet tonight. What I am thinking is that if I am thinking what they are thinking, if they are quiet and do not interject or try to heckle me, then I will sit down quicker. That is a so called strategy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You never?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: I cannot help that. The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that he was hurt because he never even got hon. mention. I will tell you this, I had no control over that. I can only respond and tell the House of Assembly what people have told me. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs should take it as a compliment that he was nominated. As I said earlier, I can only relay to the House what I have been told.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I think I did. I thought I mentioned it. He might have missed it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that is not a positive thing, that is a negative. You should be happy you were not nominated and that you did not get it, boy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I see.

MR. J. BYRNE: See, that is the ostrich award for having your head in the sand.

MR. MATTHEWS: In that case, what can I do for you?

MR. J. BYRNE: I will be over to talk to you later, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. No problem there.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what I am going to do now is sit down. Thank you for the time tonight. I thank the members on the other side of the House for listening so attentively here tonight. The next time around, the next award that comes, I will try and see, I suppose, that the same person does not receive the same award or another award in the future. With that I am just going to let the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's get to his feet, if he so wishes. Now the Government House Leader might want to get up and respond to that award. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand here tonight and make a few comments on the amendment and say for sure that I am one who certainly will be supporting the non-confidence motion when it comes to the floor of the House. Before I do that, I mentioned (inaudible) the press over the past few days to report from our task force in trying to organize the `flip-flop' committee. I have a final report to present tonight. Before I do that I would like to thank the other members who helped me out and assisted me in coming up with this committee. I would certainly like to thank you for all the information I received from the other side of the House because some of this was unknown to me but it was of great assistance.

I would like to thank the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island for his assistance over the past couple of days in giving me some information. It is very important and I had to know, when it came from the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, it was factual and I would just like to say thank you very much. I also would like to thank the Member for Bay of Islands who has been a great help over the past couple of days in giving me some information. I would not be able to put this report together except for the Member for Bay of Islands and his support. Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank the Minister of Government Services and Lands for his help over the past couple of days in some information that he passed on that has come forward. With the assistance of those three gentlemen we have drawn a conclusion on the three members that will make up the `flip-flop' committee. I would like to tell you why.

I would like to touch, if I could -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I thank the three members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) didn't make it?

MR. MANNING: First of all, the Member for Cape St. Francis, I was a little bit worried because I thought he was after taking my notes today when I wasn't in the office. I was a wee bit worried. I say it is going to be a very important night for a certain member on the other side of the House. I would just like to get to that by flip-flopping in the paper today. That is pretty good.

I say there are a few people that almost made it to the `flip-flop' committee. Their nominations were considered but were not accepted. I just want to run through the nominations, if I could, and give the reason why these people were nominated. I must say, the Member for Bay of Islands knows a couple of these people who got nominated because he was in on the discussions.

I would just like to touch, if I could, and go back -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: One reason for a flip-flop is that you change your party stripe. When we started going down through the members on the other side we almost ended up with a whole page of people that were flip-flops.

I will start with the Minister of Environment and Labour. The first nomination was the Minister of Environment and Labour. He was elected as a Conservative and managed to cross the floor and became a Liberal, so he was considered as a member of the `flip-flop' committee but he did not make it.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was also considered. I just want to say he was a bit concerned there that time because the Member for Cape St. Francis did not consider him as part of his awards. I have to say the Minister of Municipal Affairs was certainly considered as a member of the `flip-flop' committee because he was once a good solid Tory too. Now that he is on the other side he was considered. I took you into consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Look, you are just upset because the Member for Cape St. Francis did not consider you. At least our committee considered you, I say to the member, so do not get upset.

I also was impressed with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. When I was elected here in 1993, the present Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was on this side of the House. When I came back, he was on that side of the House. He was considered to be a member of the `flip-flop' committee too. It was not enough to bring him up to full standard, to meet all criteria, just the fact that he crossed the floor.

I say to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment I'm glad she is here tonight. I thank one of your colleagues for reminding me about 1987. I was not around at that time. They also told me that you were also considered to by a Tory at one time. I did not know until one of your own colleagues told me. I say thanks to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I really appreciate the help you have given me over the past few days. I was not aware, but the Minister of Human Resources and Employment was considered to be part of the `flip-flop' committee but she did not make it either, I say, she did not meet the criteria.

Then we started going around the back of the room over there. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo was considered to be a member of the `flip-flop' committee too. He was nominated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I will tell you why if you will just stay calm, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. During the election campaign you had to go down to Twillingate and tell the people in Twillingate that the plant was sold to a Quebec firm. Then you had to go back a few days after and tell them it was not.

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

MR. MANNING: Look, see? I am having some job to get this through, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: I would like for the member opposite to withdraw the remark that he just made, Mr. Speaker, because it is a downright lie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement. He cannot say that.

MR. REID: You cannot say it? Mr. Speaker, he is misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the statement but he is deliberately (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement without qualifications.

MR. REID: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but I never -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I will just continue on with the nomination process. I once again want to thank the members opposite for their assistance. I thank the members opposite for the information because I was not aware of some of this information.

I also want to say that over the past few days the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was also considered to be a member of the `flip-flop' committee because of a promise he made to the bed and breakfast operators here in the city. I see the president of the bed and breakfasts, Ms Ann Bell, in the paper yesterday making some comments that the minister had promised something during the election and had sung a different tune after the election. Therefore, he was considered. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was also considered to be a member of the `flip- flop' committee but there was not enough. He did not meet all the criteria, so I say that he had to be ruled out. He was given serious consideration because of the latest `flip-flop' where he turned around and did not deliver to the bed and breakfast operators of the City of St. John's what he had promised them.

We had careful consideration given to several other members of the House. The Member for Bellevue, I say, was given consideration, but the fact that he was already appointed as the chairperson of the `meetloaf' committee I say that, as I told him yesterday, he could not be on two committees. Therefore we could not consider him to be part of it. It had something to do with a meeting in Clarenville and the fact that he was going to be a minister one day and then he was not going to be a minister the next day. It was not given serious consideration, I say to the Member for Bellevue, because it just did not meet the criteria.

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

MR. MANNING: You see, (inaudible) cannot be handled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: On point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to clarify something to the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. Because I was in heavy negotiations with a school board in Clarenville and whatever I related to them that famous night in the nice foggy atmosphere worked, because I got my own way.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue did not tell us what department he was not going to be minister of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Bellevue for clarification. I just want to continue on with the rest of the nominations before I get to the committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No. As a former colleague said one time in the House, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is as sharp as a bowling ball.

Mr. Speaker, I say I just want to get back to the nominations because I see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MANNING: I knew you were going to get excited. Look, everybody cannot be on the committee, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Everybody cannot be on the committee, it is a three-member committee. You are getting upset but everybody cannot be on the committee, I say. We are down to three members and three members only and, I am very sorry but you will have to talk to the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and the Minister of Government Services and Lands because they were my consultants from that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that it was worth it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No, there were a couple of others who were nominated, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I am pretty smart, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I am back here. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services was also nominated for the fact that one time she led the nurses in this Province for fair and equal treatment, and when she got into a position where she could deliver that it did not come to pass in the eyes of many nurses in this Province. Therefore the Minister of Health and Community Services was also nominated but she did not make it either.

The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, was also nominated for the `flip-flop' committee. The Minister of Finance was considered, and the reason his nomination came forward - and especially I want to thank the Member for Bay of Islands for all his assistance. He keeps looking over. We are doing what we said we would do, we will get there. The Minister of Finance was nominated for the fact that less than one hundred days ago tax cuts were out of this world. You could not talk about them. The Minister of Finance said it was foolish for the Tories to be talking about tax cuts. We could not afford to do tax cuts. We were not in a position to have tax cuts. Then, less than one hundred days after, he says: I think we should have tax cuts. That is why he was also nominated to be a member of the `flip-flop' committee but he has not been flip-flopping much lately. Now that the leadership race is on he might start to flip-flop a bit more. He did not make it as a full-fledged member of the committee because he did not meet all the criteria.

The Premier himself was nominated but I went through the Premier the other day and the reason he was not put forward. Now we are now down to the three members who made up the three-member committee. I will go through them one at a time. The first member of the committee, the director of the committee, is no other than the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister of Fisheries is the first named member. Now, he is not the chair, but he is the director. The reason why he -

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he get paid?

MR. MANNING: No, there is only a travel budget for one member and I will get to that in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is the first member of the `flip-flop' committee, and there are several reasons why. One of the reasons is that one day he wanted a seal cull when he was here in Newfoundland. He wanted a full-fledged seal cull. We had 6 million to 7 million seals. Then by the time he got to Ottawa he did not want the seal cull. That was a major flip-flop and that is one of the reasons why he was considered. Last year, the Minister of Fisheries wanted the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council gone. He did not think it was worthwhile. This year he wanted it kept. Gone and kept, so the Minister of Fisheries made a major flip-flop there and he was also considered.

I turned on the television the other night to watch the Toronto Maple Leafs win the game heading into the semi-finals and I was waiting for Don Cherry's corner. When I turned on the television there was the federal Minister of Fisheries and the provincial Minister of Fisheries in a corner down in Boston hugging. Hugging, I say to the member, they were hugging. They were down in Boston hugging. So it was a love-hate relationship with the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa. When he went to Ottawa then the Minister of Fisheries refused to speak with him. So he had a major flip-flop there also. That was the reason the Minister of Fisheries was certainly considered, nominated and accepted to be a member of the `flip-flop' committee.

The Government House Leader was also nominated and accepted, I say, and I'm sure he would be pleased with that after his earlier honour here tonight, that he would be considered as a member of the `flip-flop' committee. The reason the Government House Leader was considered and was accepted is that he meet a few different criteria. If we go back a little ways, he got on the television and the radio in the Province a few years ago and asked for people to send him in petitions. He wanted names. He wanted hundreds of petitions sent into the House. He wanted to be able to present this to bring back to the Department of Fisheries. He wanted a sole Department of Fisheries and he asked for names. Information had it that he had around 15,000 names up in his office and for some reason or other he did not want to present it in the House. The people of the Province, certainly the fishermen of the Province, felt there was a major flip-flop by the then backbencher, now Government House Leader.

Back in 1987 to 1989 - and I thank the members opposite for this information - when the present Government House Leader, the Member for Bonavista North, was in the House and the former premier, Premier Wells, was elected to the House, the Member for Bonavista North was a major supporter of the Premier of the day, major supporter. He kept the House going here while the premier travelled around the Province from 1987 to 1989.

When the former premier was elected in 1989, for some reason or other the Member for Bonavista North did not like him any more. That was considered a major flip-flop by many people in the party, but I am sure that the Member for Bonavista North had his own reasons for that and that is why he became after, instead of a very strong supporter of the then-premier, a distant supporter. So it is very important that that was noted here. That is why the Government House Leader became a member of what I call the `flip-flop' committee, because he would kind of be on one side one day and he was on the other side the next day. It was interesting to watch that all unfold.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that you are still upset because you were not a member of the committee. You are almost making it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: The Member for Humber East is upset because he was not even nominated. The sandbagger is all upset because he was not even nominated. It is not my fault. Talk to the members on your side. You were not even nominated, I say to the Member for Humber East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, the voice in the wilderness. I have a bad ear so I cannot hear the members too well, but I would rather be a tour guide than kissing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: If you will let me say it. I would rather be a tour guide than kissing Art's ankles, I say to the member. Do you know where you start? You start at the ankles, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and you work your way up. That is one thing in my thirty-five years I have not done yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, you start at Art's ankles and you work your way up. Don't worry. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, take it easy. The Member for Humber East is all upset because he was not considered as a member of the `flip-flop' committee. You are a member of the `meetloaf' committee, I would say. You should be a member of the `flip-flop' committee. I pushed for you to get there because of the flip-flop you made in Corner Brook, and then you came back to the House. That was a major flip-flop, but you were not considered.

The Minister of Fisheries and the Government House Leader were two members. The final member of the `flip-flop' committee and the person who will chair this committee - I will not name him. I am going to give a couple of examples why he was considered, then I am going to ask the members opposite if they can think on who this person could be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Identify them.

MR. MANNING: See if you can identify this person, Mr. Speaker, the person we have selected, with the help I received from the Minister of Government Service and Lands, the Member for Bay of Islands, and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. We have considered as chair of the committee the following person. I ask, once I have given some description of this person, if you can identify who the chair of the flip-flop committee will be.

Let's go back a few years when this person stood up as the then-Minister of Education and promised a central university in Central Newfoundland, Grand Falls. After the election, he decided it was not feasible to put it out there. It was a major flip-flop, as considered by the people out in Central Newfoundland, especially when this person had ties to that area. He still did not deliver on his promise of a central university even though he was at that time the Minister of Education.

Another reason why this member was accepted as the chair of the `flip-flop' committee was that a few years ago, in 1995 or 1996, there seemed to be a major movement afoot towards raising money for a leadership campaign. This person raised a fair amount of money while he vacationed in Florida at the time. While he was vacationing in Florida he spent much time on the phone raising money for the leadership campaign. He then decided, after raising a fair amount of money, that he was not going to run for the leadership. He decided to bail out. My information leads me to believe that he has invested the money now in some very conservative funds, so I hope that he makes it.

The main reason that this person was selected as Chair of the `flip-flop' committee - I think I would be remiss if I did not name him now. The Minister of Mines and Energy is the new Chair of the `flip-flop' committee. The main reason the committee selected the Minister of Mines and Energy as the Chair of the `flip-flop' committee is the fact of what he did to the teachers in this Province when he had an opportunity. He stood out here on the steps and cried crocodile tears for the teachers of this Province in trying to get them a good and fair deal. When he had the opportunity here in the House, as the Minister of Education, he just did not deliver.

There was a major input from the teachers in the Province into this selection process. I would just like to say that the committee also agreed that we will give a travel budget to the Minister of Mines and Energy to travel from here out to the steps of the Confederation Building, complete with towels to dry up the tears that he will be crying on behalf of teachers in the Province. That was one of the main reasons why the Minister of Mines and Energy was selected as the Chair of the `flip-flop' committee.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present this report tonight on behalf of the members of the committee, and hopefully over the next few days people will consider it and not be upset.

It really, really bothers me that some people on the other side of the House are still a bit upset. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo is still upset. I hear him talking under his breath. He is still upset about the fact that he was not made a member of the committee. He is not member of the `meetloaf' committee and he is not a member of the `flip-flop' committee. I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace: I will give you major consideration for the next committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I will give you major consideration for the next committee. They just did not make the cut this time.

I would just like to say that I am very pleased to be able to present this report tonight. I hope the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is not too put out. I just say that I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present the report tonight from the committee, and I hope that the committee does well in its future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise to speak in the debate, the non-confidence motion. One of the reasons I have no hesitation at all in speaking and voting for this particular motion is because of the way in which the Minister of Education has responded to the concerns of parents.

This afternoon in the Estimates debate, the concurrence debate, I gave some commentary from various parents. I went over some of the rather meticulous notes that I took from the meetings I attended in various parts of the Province. As I said then, the meetings I attended were not political meetings. They were meetings where parents, teachers, administrators and school board people came out to say: Here are the facts we are dealing with in our community.

It was very insulting and belittling on the part of the Minister of Education to appear on television last week to say that teachers and principals had put the students and parents up to taking part in these particular protests. I found that to be insulting to the parents.

While the minister can take political shots at members of the Opposition who are on the other team, you might say, I found it to be very condescending and belittling to the parents and to their interests and to the sincerity in which they presented their position to the people who were coming out to the committee, and to the members of the media who attended.

I am sure that if these meetings I attended had been focused on politics, the media who attended would certainly have made that point. In none of those meetings, and in none of the newspaper reports, was there a single commentary that said that members of this party had done anything other than arrange a meeting. As a matter of fact, when we did our introduction we were very cautious to introduce ourselves merely as members of the House, with our district names indicated.

There isn't any doubt that those who attended - the parents, the students, and the school board members - that they, themselves, knew who we were, as members of the Opposition, because we had been challenged by the minister to go out and find examples.

This afternoon I spent some time talking about the meetings in Corner Brook where we met with the school board, and talking about the meetings we had in Stephenville where we met with the school board and with the local parent councils of that region. Then we went on to Grand Falls where we met again at St. Francis of Assisi School there with members of the local school board and members of the school administrators group. That particular exchange was covered on local cable out there.

I did not have one single person, not a single person, who said anything to me that this was anything other than an opportunity for parents to come in and say, this is what we want you to take back to the Minister of Education.

Some of these parent councils went to great lengths. For example, I am holding here in my hand a letter from Harbour Breton, St. Joseph's School Council, signed by the Chair who was Joanne Pierce. The school council up there wrote a two-page letter. This cannot be dismissed by the Minister of Education. Yet, she says: No, no, that is a lot of hogwash.

She says here, and she is writing to the Joint School Councils Action Committee in Grand Falls. It is an interesting letter. It is dated long before our committee was even announced. It certainly was not written for our committee. It was written for the joint parent councils in the region. She applauds the action of the Joint School Councils Action Committee. She applauds and fully supports them for trying to bring the issue of teacher cuts to the attention of this Legislature and to the attention of the school board. She notes that, "St. Joseph's School is a K - 6 school with a present student population of 212. The total teacher allocation for the school this year is 13.5 and this allocation will be reduced to 12.5 in September with a projected enrolment of 205."

In other words this school lost, in total, seven students; but in losing seven students they lost one teacher unit. They lose seven students and they lose a whole teacher unit. The parents here are concerned with that. She says, "St. Joseph's School in Harbour Breton, like many schools in the Baie Verte, Central, Connaigre School District, has been experiencing a decline in the number of teachers..." over the last number of years. "The loss of teachers has had a negative impact on the overall quality of education that our children are receiving. This latest reduction in the teaching staff will have yet another negative impact on our children."

She goes on to say, "Our students will have many support services reduced or eliminated by September if action is not taken now to prevent this from happening."

Mr. Speaker, they talked about providing increase in class size. The class size has gone up tremendously. She says, "Our school does not have a music program. We did have a music teacher for a number of years but this program was lost just before the schools were restructured...". She says as well that they are hoping to reinstate their music program but that does not seem to be the case.

The Chair of the school council here again goes into some of the impacts it will have on some of the speciality programs - music and art, and that kind of thing. It says that when their children voted for a better tomorrow - I will read the sentence which says that - "These numbers do not fit into our plan for a quality education and a better tomorrow for our children."

Mr. Speaker, these are not the words of the Member for Waterford Valley. I am reading them but they are not my words. These are the words of Joanne Pierce, Council Chairperson, St. Joseph's School Council, written long before our committee went out to hear. The reason we got access to this is because this message here was sent - I will read what is here as well. It says: We have forwarded this letter to the Minister of Education. We have forwarded it as well to our member, and we have forwarded it to the Premier. We have initiated a postcard campaign to our member, the Minister of Education, the Premier.

I will read this particular sentence because this is why these parents felt they were not being heard. She writes: "This attempt to get the government to listen to parents is ongoing but all early indications point to a great response from our parents," but not much of a response from the government.

Why St. Joseph's school council did not get a reply is something the Minister of Education could answer. Perhaps the member for that area could answer that. Certainly, I want to point out that I could go on here. I have letters that come from Green Bay and from all over the Province. I have a whole batch of correspondence here. I have another one here from King Academy School Council, Harbour Breton. Again, it is written to the Joint School Councils Action Committee and was written by Scott Thistle. Scott Thistle is the Chairperson of King Academy School Council in Harbour Breton. Note the date on it. It is dated May 7. That is before our committee even went on the road.

When the minister gets up and says: I am not going to listen to members of the Opposition, the only reason why we went out to visit the Province is because the Minister of Education said she was not going to listen to anybody other than her own colleagues. In other words, she said, if it does not come from sources on her own side of the House she is not going to listen. Obviously members on her own side of the House are not listening to their constituents, because why would all of those people come out to a meeting organized by the Opposition if they were getting a great response from their own members? The answer is that they are not getting a good response. For example, if the people in Grand Falls were happy with the representation they were getting on this issue, why would they come out to a meeting organized by the Conservative Opposition? They wouldn't.

If the people in Springdale, Lewisporte, Gander, Wings Point, Corner Brook and in Clarenville, and all these other people who came out to our meetings, if their voices were being heard by the members on the other side, their own members, why would they come out and attend our meeting? The answer is they came out to attend our meeting because they were not being heard by the people on the other side. The messages were not getting through.

Now I just want to go again to a letter here from King Academy School Council, a copy of correspondence dated May 7. It is written by Scott Thistle and in talking again to the School Councils Action Committee he says:

In your deliberations and meetings with government, would you impress upon them the shock and dismay we feel as parents for the manner in which government has handled school reform? It is indeed a great disappointment.

Then he goes on to talk about the changes in that school. King Academy High School is a very small school. Again, he talks about the reduction of 1.5 teaching units in that school for next year. He says here: (Inaudible) we will be forced to drop either advanced math or the basic math program. They forced students into language programs to which they are not suited. It will put delivery of our science program in jeopardy.

Then again he talks about having special needs children in the regular classroom. In fact, in Grade VII there are twenty-eight students and ten of them have special needs. In Grade VIII there are twenty-four students and eight of them have special needs. In Grade IX there are forty students and eight of them have special needs. In Levels I, II and III there are 117 students and nineteen of them have special needs.

That is the kind of message that is not getting through to the Minister of Education. She chose instead to blame the parents, to blame the teachers, and to blame the students for organizing or for getting involved in the kind of protest we have had. Regrettably, we said to her a few days ago, why don't you appoint an independent body? If we are all wrong on this side, if all the correspondence I have here and the meticulous notes I have taken, if this is all wrong - and I write rather meticulous notes when I go out to meetings -, if we on this side have gone and not read the population properly, we said to the Minister of Education: Why don't you appoint a task force? Why don't you go out there and find somebody of great calibre, people who know the educational system? Why don't you do that? Why don't you do a program? Because we are going to have reductions again next year. Why don't we set up a body that is going to be able to independently advise the House?

The Minister of Education says: No, I am not going to do that. I'm going to play God. I know everything. I am only going to listen to my select group on my own side. I am not going to listen to anybody else. I am not going to listen to the parents, not going to listen to the students, to the school councils, to the administrators and to the teachers. I will decide what is best.

We thought that was a very good alternative. It would depoliticize it. As the Member for Humber East said this afternoon, it would avoid having this House doing the micromanaging that seems to be occurring. It is not the role of this House to be out there deciding whether or not King Academy or some other school is going to lose 1.5 units or not. That is not the role of this House.

When the Minister of Education fails to address the needs of our children in Newfoundland and Labrador, then members feel they have to bring those issues forward. We again today implore upon the minister to consider appointing the task force that will result in an independent arbitrator, an independent advisor, bringing together all the expertise that is required and making not only a plan for September 1999, but making a plan for September 2000 and the year 2001.

I am pressured by my colleagues here because so many of them want to speak and we do have some time constraints. Members know I feel rather passionately about this particular subject. With the notes I have here I could continue on for several hours but I do have a time limit. I cannot speak again in the main motion because I have already spoken four and a half hours on that. I just want to say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four and a half days.

MR. H. HODDER: Four days and four and a half hours, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to say to the House that when it comes to the education of our children let's not play politics with it. Let's make sure we do the right thing and let's do it right. Let's consider again appointing a task force that can do the thing independently. Let's not be overly concerned, but be concerned, with the financial implications, but let's not say that we in this Province are going to have a balanced budget or we are going to have a surplus budget because we are going to deny our four-, five-, six-, eight- and ten-year-olds access to adequate educational opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the way we are going to do it, then I will tell you what. We will save a few dollars today but we will at the end of the road cause ourselves a lot more expenditure than those few dollars we save. Education is an investment. You cannot save money, you cannot balance a budget, by cutting back on education. You have to balance your budget by investing in education. If you doubt that, look at what has been done in Ireland, look at what has been done in Iceland. We should be saying in Newfoundland and Labrador let's get on with the job, and let's do what is right for our children, your children, my children, and for all the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's do it right and let's do it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to participate in this debate this evening with respect to the motion for non-confidence as put forward by my colleagues and members of this side of the House.

There is really little that can be added when you hear what was expressed here this evening so clearly and concisely, because obviously the points that have been made reflect exactly the basis of the motion for non-confidence; and in particular, the words of my colleague from the District of Waterford Valley, who was with me on may of the meetings that we attended, in particular on the West Coast of the Province.

We discussed matters of importance with individuals in Port aux Basques and in Stephenville, and other members met with individuals in Grand Falls and Lewisporte. I had an opportunity to be with the critic just a few nights ago as we met with parents and students of Greenwood Academy in Wings Point in Gander Bay.

This has not been an easy session on government. That is largely because of the debate that has taken place and the very serious questions that have been asked by members in this House of Assembly and by the public at large, because obviously the public of this Province has some very serious concerns with respect to many of the social issues, in particular health and education. With respect to education, all one had to do was attend these meetings, and it would be seen clearly how students, parents, teachers and administrators felt.

I would just like to give a couple of examples, if I may, to follow up on what was expressed by my colleague the Member for Waterford Valley. In particular, I think one school, which is representative of many of the problems which exist as a result of the proposed cuts to teachers in the Province, was the Stephenville Middle School which has a population of over 420 students. It was learned at that particular meeting, and in response to questions that were raised by students and parents, that because of the proposed cuts in that particular school administration time will be cut, and obviously that results in less time for administrators to deal with issues concerning teachers and students. Guidance in that particular school is cut in half. Library services have been eliminate. In fact, in that particular school the library is serviced by parent volunteers, individuals who obviously have no legal obligation to be present. Were they to discontinue their voluntary services that would be the end of assistance being granted to students in the library in that particular school.

There was also some concern expressed by parents of French Immersion students. The school is supported by three special education teachers. However, there are over forty-five core special education students who are enroled in that particular school. This was just one example of many examples of frustration and serious concern being expressed by those individuals who were present.

There is very little that I want to add with respect to the education concerns that had been expressed throughout the visitation to a number of schools in the Province.

It is clear that the minister has a serious issue that she must address. It is clear that the Minister of Education must now take it upon herself to evaluate and assess and hopefully, in conjunction with the directors of our various school boards, make the appropriate decisions to ensure the students in our schools, in our Province, are given the type of instruction and the type of education they so richly deserve.

I am not going to prolong this debate. I simply want to add my support to this non-confidence motion. It is a very important motion, and it represents clearly the feelings of my colleagues on this side of the House, who feel that the Budget and the presentation of it, and the further clarification of it by members opposite, is not appropriate and requires further examination and questioning by the public at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to stand and support this non-confidence motion made by my colleague. It had been seen in the past few weeks, from all the consultations we were doing with parents in the districts, that fourteen schools were closed in District #5. Restructuring has already taken place. Now the concerns are real when it comes to what is going to happen this fall. A lot of things needed to be done before schools open in the fall will not be done.

District #5 has done its restructuring and saved the government over $7 million in its restructuring. There is no new money allocated this year for District #5. They were forced to borrow $1 million to put in their budget for the school year past. With no new money to put in a district like District #5, decisions will have to be made to cut something. Programs will have to be cut, classes will have to be combined, and there will be over thirty-five students in some classes. The air quality in these classes would be unacceptable to any standard in this country. I think that we would have to take a serious look at providing funding to make sure that this fall some of the needs of the students will be taken care of.

I believe also there are problems in the employment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today. There is not enough emphasis put on job creation in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. You see people having to avail of social services just to survive. Some of these people probably are not even going to survive this year. They will be forced to make a decision to move. They are going to have to move to secure even just food for their family to put on their tables.

I have talked to some lately that have light bills built up over the winter and have their final notices coming from the power company. Within the next few days some of these people will have to do without their electricity. Also, I talked to one who has already been cut. You cannot do that to people with children. In this day and age it is not acceptable to have a family living in a house with two teenage children and have to do without electricity.

I have also seen other things in the areas of the pensioners. Some of the pensioners I talked to in the last little while are living on fixed incomes. I think these pensioners deserve a fair share of increases, and I think the government should look at at least increasing their pensions to an acceptable level. When we become seniors we want to be taken care of fairly and treated fairly as human beings. I think it is time these pensioners would be looked at seriously and something done for them.

Over the last little while I have done a bit of travelling around in the country, and I noticed something that really bothered me. I saw a lot of litter and garbage being dumped on side roads. I wonder why some of the government officials are not out there looking at that. Maybe it is because there are not enough of them in the system to police off roads and areas where there are garbage and litter problems. I have seen places and side roads where full pickup truck loads of garbage were dumped to the side way. I think if there were enough people working in the system then time could be spent tracking down some of these people, finding out who is dumping this garbage and littering our beautiful countryside.

I agree with the Minister of Fisheries. We have a beautiful country, beautiful scenery, and I am very proud to live here in Newfoundland and Labrador. When I travel around and I see the beautiful hillsides and countryside, and then have to go in on a side road and see a load of garbage, a load of furniture, a load of all kinds of gardening debris just put to the side of the road, it disturbs me. I am very concerned over it, that Newfoundlanders could do such a thing as that. I think we should be educated better to respect our environment, to respect our beautiful scenery and countryside that we have. I think more money in our future budgets, and more money in this Budget, should be put in to increase our workforce in management of our environment and put more people out there to work to make sure that these things are taken care of and do not happen any more.

I think if some of these people who are doing these things had a way to make a living and had a way to work, then they probably would not be so quick in going out and doing these things. Because some of them are pretty discouraged and couldn't care less when they know that down the road they may have to be forced to go away to find work. They just do not care any more. I think when we lose that pride we are losing something very precious to us in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are losing the respect that we have for our own environment, the respect that we have for this beautiful country we have here.

I think we all should be proud to be a part of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we should probably encourage our education systems to educate our people and our children are coming up to respect that. That is probably a negative thing that I am talking about that could be used to be a positive thing. If we just tried harder, everybody tried harder, to teach our children, to teach our friends: We do not do this in our own backyard.

Even though we do not have enough money to correct all the problems in Newfoundland and Labrador, I do support my colleague tonight in this non-confidence motion against this budget. Hopefully, more money could go in to the system to hire more employees to look at these problems and make sure that these guilty people are brought to justice, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise tonight to join in the debate on the non-confidence motion now before the House. I've heard a number of speeches here tonight and during this debate concerning a lot of issues of concern to the people of the Province. I want to talk about the government and the government's performance and whether or not -

MR. SULLIVAN: Or lack thereof.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it has been performance, I say. It has not been a very good performance, that is the problem. They have certainly been performing, but the question is: Do we have confidence in that performance or do we not?

Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago we had an election. Some people have not gotten over it yet. Some people are surprised with their good luck. I say, what we have before the Province right now is a question of whether or not there is any confidence in this Province in this government. What I say is that there is a crisis of confidence in this government. You read the papers, and the papers are full of editorial comment, editorial cartoons, ridicule, letters to the editor, challenging the creditability of this government over the most basic of issues.

A few months ago we had an election in which the Premier was claiming to be the great negotiator. He said: I want to be the man, I want to be the one to negotiate the great issues of the day. During the campaign he had an opportunity to talk to people who were following him around and engaging him in debate from time to time, place to place, such as the nurses. What happened after the election? The great negotiator got personally involved in negotiations. We know the result. He could not make a deal. He could not manage to figure out where the deal was, how to get to the deal, how to reach an agreement. What did he do? He used the bullying tactics of legislation to enforce on them a contract.

I won't even call it a contract, because I guess if you force it on someone it is not really a contract. A contract is defined as an agreement. There was no agreement. It was a forced set of terms and conditions of employment on the nurses, aided and abetted in this House by the Minister of Mines and Energy, his point man in this House for three or four days of debate.

Where was the Province on that? What kind of confidence did the people of the Province have in the government's ability to deal with this issue? What were the numbers? Do you remember the number, I say to the Member for Humber East? Remember the numbers. The numbers were 88 per cent of the people of the Province supporting the nurses and not the government. There is no confidence in this government in this Province because of their failure to deal properly with the nurses in negotiations.

What about the firefighters, and the great negotiator on the firefighters? The firefighters went through negotiations, they went through conciliation. They went through all the processes. They went through arbitration. They went through all the `ations' - negotiation, conciliation, and arbitration.

They got an award, and what did the government do with that? Did they respect the process of bargaining? Did they respect that? No, they used their power - once again, power. This is about power and exercise of power, I say to the Member for Topsail. He knows about power.

I heard him this morning on the radio when he was asked: Who does the government listen to - the Town of Conception Bay South or the member? Me, he said, me. They listen to me. I am the boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am the government member.

MR. HARRIS: I am the government member. I talk to the minister and they listen to me.

They love power, and when they can exercise that power over certain individuals in the Province, like the nurses or the firefighters, they do it; but - there is a big but - what happens when the great negotiator comes up against an international oil company? Oh, it changes. The international oil companies, oh, that is a different story. They do not exercise the power over them. They let them go off and build their ships anywhere else in the world. They let them go over to England and do their design. They let Halifax take over, building ships for Terra Nova, all done in Halifax, when an empty shipyard down in Marystown -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - sold for $1, and 29 per cent unemployment on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Now, who else is in negotiations? Voisey's Bay Nickel. We heard the minister today, the great negotiator: We are waiting for a proposal. Well, tell us what your royalties are, Mr. Government. Oh, no, that is going to be part of the proposal.

We do not have any royalties in place. We do not have any taxes. We are waiting for them to tell us how much royalties they would like to pay.

Now, the minister did not quite say it that way today but the minister is waiting. He will not know what the royalties for the Voisey's Bay project are until Inco tells him. Not until Inco tells him will he know. That is why he could not answer the questions today. This is the great negotiator. This is the government who loves to exercise their power over the nurses, exercise their power over the firefighters, exercise their power over people in the Province, but when it comes to someone outside the Province, when it comes to Voisey's Bay Nickel, when it comes to the offshore oil, when he comes to IOC -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - then they will show what kind of negotiators they are, what kind of deals they can make.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi over there talking about an award that the firefighters were supposed to have gotten through an arbitrator. Could he clarify for the House? Does he mean the firefighters or does he mean the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary? If he means the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, obviously he does not know what he is talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: A very bad point of order but not a bad point of correction. The RNC is what I was talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I want to thank the member. I got carried away because I am so disgusted with this government's use -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Lots of people get excited about fire trucks and police officers. This government used its power over the nurses, used its power over the RNC, uses its power except when it comes to Voisey's Bay Nickel, to Inco; no power there. Not only that, but anyone who even suggests that we should have a royalty regime, anyone who suggests that we should have on paper, in open debate in this House of Assembly, legislation deciding what our royalties are, is somehow or other supporting Inco. The real people supporting Inco are the people on that side of the House who are asking Inco how much royalties they would like to pay, the same crowd who asked Petro-Canada what terms would they like to have for the Terra Nova development? What words would they like to have in there that they could slip and slide around? What words would they like to have there so they could slip and slide around and make sure they could go wherever they want?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Why do we have, in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, the only project in the world that is based on international competitiveness -

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible). Sorry.

MR. HARRIS: - when every other country worth its salt demands that they be in the driver's seat when it comes to jobs, technology and operation.

Let us look at Norway. Would the Norwegians allow an international competitiveness as the guiding principle in offshore development? No, Mr. Speaker. No, they did not do that. They said: We want to have the benefits of our offshore for our people, for our engineers, for our workers, for our technical people, to learn the trade, to be players in the market. What do we have? We have the Norwegian contractors coming over here to Newfoundland to build Hibernia - Norwegian contractors.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He is delighted. The understudy to the Minister of Education is delighted with that. The Member for Humber East is delighted.

The great negotiators, the ones who are looking after our interests, they were quite happy to see the pellet plant go down to Sept-Iles because there was nothing they could do about it. It is a wonder the Minister of Mines and Energy did not cry those same tears that he did on the steps of the House of Assembly when he said: I did as much as I could and I could not do any more.

That is the answer this government has to IOC. They are not prepared to tell them what we want and to ensure that we have the proper benefit from our resources.

All we hear them say is a few weasel words: full and fair benefits. Those are the watch word: full and fair benefits. Now what does that mean, full and fair benefits? What does that mean? It is like Alice in Wonderland. These words mean exactly what the government wants them to mean, an Alice in Wonderland government, because we are not going to know what the royalties are until Inco tells the government. That is why they cannot tell us; they have not been told themselves.

What kind of way is that to run a government? How can we have confidence in a government that cannot even tell the people of the Province what the royalty regime is going to be for mineral development in their Province? We cannot do it, Mr. Speaker.

I was here in December of 1994. The Member for Humber East was doing something else. I was here in December of 1994 when the legislation was introduced to give a ten-year tax holiday for all mineral development, all new mineral development in Newfoundland and Labrador, a ten-year tax holiday.

The minister of the day - that great minister, Rex Gibbons, the Minister of Mines and Energy of the day, geologist - was saying: We have no more minerals left. There is nothing left. They are all gone, no minerals. They do not have anything to explore. What we want to do is have this special incentive program so the few odd little bits and pieces that we have lying around, maybe a few tailings piles here and there, a few unprofitable discoveries, we will have a tax holiday so they will all be developed.

What happened, Mr. Speaker? Everybody got up in the House singing the praises of the legislation. It was wonderful. It was wonderful legislation. It was going to promote mineral development in the Province. It was going to promote all kinds of activity. Everybody praised it except one person. There was one person who did not praise it, and I was shouted down. I was a naysayer, a negative person I guess the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was saying, always being negative and not talking about the positive aspects of this wonderful legislation.

That was in December of 1994. What else happened in 1994? What happened in 1994 was that the Voisey's Bay discovery had taken place and the shares of Diamond Field Resources already had great play on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I said at the time, in the debate in this House of Assembly, what if this is a bonanza? What if this is something - we do not know what is going on in the Vancouver Stock Exchange but what if this is a big find? We have legislation we are now putting in place that guarantees a ten-year tax holiday for all development, no matter what its size, no matter what is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, that legislation is still in place and the government has had five years to pass legislation to tell the people of this Province what the mineral tax regime is. What is the mineral tax regime? What is the royalty they are proposing? What have they done? Well, I guess we are still waiting. The minister said it today in the House, we are waiting for Inco to tell us what the royalty regime is going to be. We are waiting for them to put it on the table. They know it is not going to be free, so we are asking them to make a bid, I guess, like the offshore, attractive property in the offshore being up for bids - not to pay the people of the Province, by the way. These are not bids to pay the people of the Province. This is a funny kind of bid. This is a new sort of bid. I don't know when they started this.

I went to law school in Alberta and they used to have bids on blocks of land for exploration. The oil companies to step up to the plate and bid away. They would sell these blocks of land. They bid money. You know where the money went? It went to the treasury of Alberta. It went to the government. It was Alberta's oil and Alberta's land. When the companies bid on the exploration rights, they wrote out a cheque to the people of Alberta.

What happens here? We have an auction on exploration rights on parcels of the offshore. I was delighted when I first (inaudible) that is wonderful, (inaudible) a bid of $150 million to $170 million, whatever it was. I said: This is wonderful, the taxpayers of Newfoundland are going to get some benefit. Then I find out that the bid is not to give money to the people of Newfoundland. This is not a bid to pay the people of Newfoundland for their ownership of the offshore, or even their share of the ownership of the offshore. No, this is a different kind of bid, I was told. If you win the bid you get to spend the money to rent a ship, to hire a drill rig to actually do the exploring. You do not give the money to the people of Newfoundland who own the resource, you give the money to a foreign shipowner, or to the owner of a rig, or somebody who is in the business to actually do the drilling.

You might hire a few Newfoundlanders in the process, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are experienced in the field. We know we have lots of them because there was a great deal of exploration that went on, at great public expense, I might add, back in the 1970s where the oil companies spent the taxpayers' money through the PIP grants. They actually made money on it because they had the 150 per cent or more than 100 per cent write-offs for their exploration activity. They hired Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do that work and there are many of them still working in the industry.

That is the bidding regime that we have here. We have a bidding regime that does not pay the people of this Province, the owners of the resource. It actually uses the money that they bid to carry out the exploration work. This is the government which we are now being asked as to whether or not we have confidence in their ability to manage the Province's resources.

On the social side, we have the former minister - she is now the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. They keep changing the name. It is like the spin doctors are at work in the back rooms, Malcom Rowe at work. How about we change the names around so we have income support here and we have social services there. It may be two years, but I am still going to call it social services. I'm soon going to call it welfare because that is what people regard it. The minister can call it income support if she wishes. They can call it income support if they wish and they can send us - all the social workers are gone. There is no social work involved in poverty anymore. It is all lack of income.

It is very interesting what goes on in our economy. I read The National Post yesterday. I do not read it very often, but I happened to see a clipping from The National Post of yesterday. What do you know? A study done by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities - I know the minister is very knowledgeable about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; she was probably on the national board, I would suspect, when she was mayor of Mount Pearl, so I would say she knows very much about it - a report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities found out that the poorest 10 per cent of residents in Canadian cities saw their total income drop 18.8 per cent from 1992 to 1996.

What do you think of that? Here we have a report saying that from 1992 to 1996 the poorest people in these cities saw their incomes drop by 18.8 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Never mind, I say to the minister. I am talking about poor people. If the member wants to talk about something else, let him take his place in debate and talk about what confidence he has in a government that stands by and watches the poorest people in this Province have their incomes drop by 19 per cent. What else happens, Mr. Speaker? What happens to the wealthy people? I want to know. Guess what happened to the rich people? The top 10 per cent of Canadian earners saw their total incomes go up by 6.8 per cent over the same period. Very interesting. The rich people are getting richer by 6.8 per cent, their earnings went up by that, and the lowest 10 per cent saw their incomes drop by 18.8 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why members opposite are getting obstreperous over there and trying to attack me personally. They do not want to hear this. They do not want anyone to even know this. They do not want to listen to it from me, they do not want anyone to report it, they do not want the people out there to know about this. They do not want anyone to know how they are mismanaging the economy and how the poorest of the people of this Province and this country are being treated.

Now we are talking about tax cuts. We have to lower our income tax. The Minister of Finance has discovered Mike Harris' approach: the righteous revolution. We have to lower the income tax. What happens when you lower the income tax? The wealthy benefit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There are ways of doing a tax cut, as the minister knows. You could go from 15 per cent to 14 per cent under HST and guess who would benefit more? The poor people would benefit more than the wealthy. You start dropping the income tax, and the people who benefit are the wealthy more than the poor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I know members opposite do not want anyone to talk about that. They just want to play their spin doctor games: We are in favour of tax cuts, we are like everybody else. We are like Mike Harris in Ontario. We will do the same. He will do all the advertising and we will jump on the bandwagon. We will go to the right. We will move to the right when it suits us, we will move to the left when it suits us. Not on principle, no principle involved at all. They will move. They will swing to the right when Mike Harris is doing well; if somebody else is doing well they will swing to the left. Not on principle, but just because they like the exercise of power. That is what the Liberal Party in this Province has become. No more fighting for the toiling masses like the former, former, former leader. The only kind of imitation of Joey Smallwood that we see in this House are the bad parts, not the good parts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: The little fellow from Gambo is next to me, I say. The only little fellow from Gambo in this House today is sitting right next to me. One of the very few positive things about the election is that the newest little fellow from Gambo was elected to take his place in this House and he will let members opposite know where he stands on issues. He is someone who has spent all of his adult life fighting for working people in their unions, in their community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, they know their hours and days are numbered. The hours and days of the members opposite are numbered. They think that they can just do whatever they want for the next three, four or five years and that there will be no time of reckoning. They think there will be no day of reckoning. They think they have it made. There they are, `Renegades' Row' back there, the Cabinet wannabes in `Renegade Row,' the four of them back their. They are renegades. `Renegade Row' back there, where the Government House Leader was when he was out of favour down in the back row, stuck underneath the portraits. Stuck behind the portraits back in `Renegade Row.' The time of reckoning will come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I know they do not want to know about it, but they do not recognize that there are people out in this Province who are suffering because this government has not done its job. When I look at the most recent statistics, I see that on the great Burin Peninsula and on the South Coast of Newfoundland, where we have a tremendous facility in Cow Head and Marystown, we have 29 per cent unemployment.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: Twenty-nine per cent. The minister says: What? He can say "what" all he wants. If he cannot hear it, I will say it louder. He seems to be saying this in disbelief. He obviously does not read the documents put out by his own government, the Economic and Statistics branch of the Department of Finance, dated May 7, 1999. In April 1999 the unemployment rate for the Burin Peninsula and the South Coast is 29.1 per cent. "What?," he says and he is the Minister of Mines and Energy. He is the one who is in charge of making sure that we are getting benefits from our offshore. He does not know, he is in disbelief about the unemployment rate on the Burin Peninsula and the South Coast of Newfoundland? No wonder, Mr. Speaker, we have no confidence in this minister and in the government.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) CBC news this evening? If he did he would realize that the Minister of Mines and Energy - even CBC said - nailed them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, 29.1 per cent and the minister says: "What?" The answer to the what is that the minister has no idea what is going on in this Province. That is why we have the kind of unemployment rate we have in an area where we have some of the most skilled workers in the Province ready to build ships, ready to fabricate work for the offshore. They are idle. They are idle because this government has not done its job.

I know that members opposite would like me to go one but I have been advised by the Chair that my time is just about up so I will end by saying, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question posed by the Opposition House Leader as to whether or not we have confidence in this government, and the answer has to be a resounding no. We have absolutely no confidence in this government, no confidence in the Premier, no confidence in the Minister of Mines and Energy, and absolutely no confidence in the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. Because what we see is an unemployment rate in rural Newfoundland which is criminal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: It is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, totally unacceptable.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Member for Terra Nova I'm not going to give a good speech at all because I'm going to be very brief. I'm just going to say a few words and then I will sit down.

Mr. Speaker, the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't feel obligated to say a few words (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I feel I will because you may learn something, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there is a big chance.

The way the minister is getting on those days - I think he was made chairman of the `flip-flop' committee - when you hear him on his morning interviews it is not hard to find out that what he is saying from one side of his mouth and what the Premier is saying from the other side is completely different.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like to refer to before we pass the Budget speech and that is to refer to rural members in the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It might be, Mr. Speaker.

One thing I would like to refer to is rural members in the House of Assembly. Sometimes we talk about how we do not have enough of this and we do not have enough of something else, or my district is busier than your district because it is a rural area, and we compare to other members and talk about the number of electors we have, but I do not think we have to apologize to anybody in this House or feel one bit bashful about looking for something so we can represent our constituents in a better way.

When you look at some of our districts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - mine with thirty-five communities, and I understand the Member for Trinity North has forty-four communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-nine.

MR. FITZGERALD: - the Member for Twillingate with thirty-nine communities, the Speaker with forty-plus communities, and you look at the resources we have to support those people and try to look after solving some of their problems, I believe we fall far short of where we should be.

If there is one thing that I would like to see, I would like to see at least the rural members of this House who need it - if you do not need it you should not have it - I would like to see the rural members of this House supported with extra support staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to see members of this House being allowed to have - you can call it an executive assistant, you can call it support staff or whatever you want, but - somebody, whether it is somebody in your district or somebody you can use right here in this building, provided to us so we can serve our constituents.

Sometimes we look at ourselves and we are afraid to do something different just in case somebody, the news media or the public, may speak out against it. Most of us did a lot of door knocking a few months ago and there was nobody who said to me that you have an office in there that is too big, you have support staff that you do not need, you are making too much money, you are getting too much expenses, or your pension is too high. None of that was said. I am not asking for more money for myself, but one thing that I think that we should have is more support to represent our constituents.

I heard the Government House Leader, a month ago, talk about when he came here as a member in the backbenches, as a member in Opposition. He talked about what he found as a member in the backbenches, and what he saw in a deputy minister's office or an assistant deputy minister's office.

Mr. Speaker, it was only a few days ago I went over and visited an ADM on the other side there. You go into his office and see what he has there compared to what you have as a Member of the House of Assembly. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador, the constituents, thousands of people, sent you into this House to represent them - and to have to go and look for an extra phone line and be told: I am sorry, we cannot give you an extra telephone line because if we do you will have to pay for it yourself. It has to come out of your expense account.

We have two telephone lines, with over 14,000 constituents to serve. You have a secretary, one secretary -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You are probably right, I say to the minister. I came here and visited this building many times prior to being elected. It was not uncommon to see two members sitting face to face with two desks, one facing the other, and a secretary serving the two of them. That does not mean to say that was right either. It does not mean to say, because we have a secretary each here now, that we are serving our constituents to the level that they expect to be served. If people can support their constituency and their constituents with the level of staff they have, fair enough. Nobody should be sitting around idle.

I do not think we, as Members of this House of Assembly, should feel one bit bashful about asking for and being provided with the tools to serve the people who put us here. I think it is something we should look at. I think it is something that the Government House Leader, the IEC, should look at doing: providing rural members with more staff and more tools in order to serve the people they serve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that I am being...

I can go on and talk about Route 235, but you will hear that again, and I can talk about education, but I am not. That is the only point I wanted to raise, and I wanted to raise it because I thought it should be raised in dealing with the Budget. I am sure there is support on both sides of the House. If we decide that we are going to allow people with busy districts to have extra staff, extra tools to do their job to serve their constituents, there would be no argument from either side of this House.

I do not think we need to go out and get involved in giving everybody luxury offices or plush furniture. The Member for Terra Nova will probably agree with me as well that all I am asking for is that we seriously look at the districts, especially rural districts in Newfoundland and Labrador where extra staff is needed, and allow the member to be able to provide his constituents with the service and support they expect when they go out and elect them and send them in here to do the job for them. It is something that I fully support and it is something I think we should seriously look at.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: If I could, Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order. Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that I think we have just put together a committee to look at where members are. I think we should seriously consider the kinds of things that he is saying.

I do not mind telling him, when I was an assistant deputy minister, I had far more materials at my disposal than when I was a backbencher in the government. When I got elected in 1993, I called this gentlemen and said: You get me two lines. I had one. As an assistant deputy minister, I had three. I tell him, I agree that we should take a very serious look at where members are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: The Government House Leader has seen it from both sides. We have all been in deputy ministers' and assistant deputy ministers' offices and seen what they have been provided with. We go back to our own little cubby holes and see what our secretaries and we, as members, are provided with. I think we fall far short of what we need and what we deserve in order to represent the people who put us here in order to support them.

It is something that we should look at, whether it is being done through the IEC or whether it is being done through some other committee of the House. I think there will be support on both sides. I can guarantee you that nobody will argue. It is a good private member's resolution, an excellent private member's resolution, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. It is one that we should bring forward. We should not hesitate and we should not be one bit bashful about stepping out and saying that we need this in order to support the people who sent us here to support them and represent them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You are right.

With that I will conclude debate. Is there anybody else here to speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, `nay'.

I declare the motion carried.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, have we concluded the Budget debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Okay. No, he is right. Sorry. I thought they had a couple of more speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee of Ways and Means rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

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

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

To the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2000. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: _________________________

A.M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message be referred to the Committee of the Whole on Supply.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the total contained in the Estimates be carried and that a resolution be adopted to give effect to the same.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has passed the amount of $2,991,799,300 contained in the Estimates of Supply and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole on Supply with respect to the Estimates for 1999-2000 together with a resolution and a bill consequent thereto be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, and that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

CLERK (Noel): Committee of the Whole on the Resolution and Bill 15.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2000 the sum of $1,933,921,000."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4, carried.

On motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee has passed a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report the Committee has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2000 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until Tuesday, May 25, at 2:00 p.m.

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