March 23, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 5

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to simply indicate to all members that recently a former member of the House of Assembly passed away. I refer to the late Brendan Howard who died Monday of this week. Mr. Howard is a former member of this House, and he represented the District of Bay de Verde from 1972 to 1975. In fact, he was buried in St. John's this morning. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members in passing our condolences on to the family of the late Brendan Howard, his wife Beth, and children Danny, Dominic, Brenda, Robert, Daphne and Colleen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to Norman Penney, a resident and councillor of the town of Victoria who passed away on March 9. Norm, as he was affectionately known, was a tireless worker for his community. He helped found the Victoria Community Development Corporation in 1992. He was also a member of the Victoria Heritage and Tourism Society. He also served many organizations including the Loyal Orange Lodge, the Masonic Lodge and the Lions Club. He was also a devoted member of the Baccalieu Amateur Radio Club since 1976, through which he made friends around the world. Norm was a firm believer that good things could only happen when people worked together. He was a very vocal supporter of cooperation.

I knew Norman Penney as an individual of great principle. He stood very sternly for what he believed in and he served the residents of Victoria throughout his life. I want to pass along my deepest sympathy to his wife Rosalie and his family on his passing. He was an individual who will be long remembered for his hard work and his ideals.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to offer congratulations and best wishes to the Beaconsfield High School Concert Band. This fifty-nine member band will be traveling to Cuba on April 16 and they will be performing at five Cuban high schools in the first five days. Actually, in the first five days they will be giving seven performances. Beaconsfield, since its inception, has had a long tradition of having really excellent concert bands. I had the privilege of hearing them perform on Remembrance Day in the fall. They are absolutely marvelous.

So to Dave Brown, their leader, to the parents who raised $107,000 so they could realize their dream, and to the band themselves I offer my best wishes and congratulations.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the auspices of the School Children Food Foundation, a breakfast club was formally established at Pasadena Academy on October 12, 1999. With the aid of a $2,000 grant from the Foundation and with the financial assistance of some forty-three partner groups within the community, the club now provides breakfast for an average of 127 K to VI children each day. On some days, as many as 150 children are served a nutritious breakfast consisting of toast, cereal, milk and juice. The club is open to all children within the school and is billed as an opportunity to partake of a nutritious breakfast in the company of their peers.

All five churches in Pasadena are active participants in the program with each having a list of twenty to twenty-five individuals who have volunteered to prepare and serve food. As an occasion to commemorate March as Nutrition Month, a dietician will be at the school tomorrow and a display of nutritious food products and recipes will be had.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to all those who are involved in this program at Pasadena Elementary.

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 rise today to congratulate the Virginia Park Action Committee on a very successful effort to restore their neighborhood school to a full K to VI program in that community.

This time last year the school was on the list for closure, and indeed in April of last year it was changed from a K to VI to a K to III school. Even worse, in June almost half of the school burnt down, but the community rallied around and under the banner ‘K to VI -Worth Fighting For,' they fought, lobbied, petitioned and eventually convinced the Avalon East School Board to rebuild their school and restore it to a full K to VI program. This was a very successful community effort to restore a neighborhood school. The next challenge is to rebuild the entire school with a new building when funds are available.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of the outcome of Fisheries Forum 2000: A Forum on Sustainability and Viability, which is part of government's pro-active efforts and commitment to create a sustainable and viable fishery for the future. This conference, held on March 14 and 15, brought together key industry and community stakeholders to discuss important issues and challenges facing our fishery.

I am very pleased to report that Fisheries Forum 2000 was indeed a success with over 300 people participating from across the Province, representing all facets of the fishery. The forum was very productive and informative, focusing on major issues that are before us as we move forward in rebuilding our fishing industry. Some of the issues highlighted during the forum included conservation, the status of our marine resource, resource allocation, fisheries research, quality, harvesting methods, education and training, workplace safety, community stability, diversification and co-operation between governments and industry.

A key message from all the issues raised by the participants was that if we want to continue rebuilding and diversifying our fishery then it must be managed in a sustainable manner and we must all play a role in ensuring that we do not repeat the mistakes we made in the past with our groundfishery.

Concerns over our snow crab resource were raised at the forum following recent surveys by DFO scientists that showed poor recruitment in the crab biomass in some areas around the Province. Although this information is preliminary, Mr. Speaker, and is a result of nature, not overfishing, we must ensure that we do whatever is necessary to avoid a collapse of the crab fishery down the road. We must be conservation-minded and protect our lucrative crab fishery for the long term.

Despite becoming a $1 billion industry in 1999, there are many challenges in the fishery, and probably the greatest of these is doing what is best for the fishery overall and the communities who depend on it with compromising our valuable fish stocks. We must also continue to look at new opportunities for small boat fishermen who are still trying to adjust to the collapse of the traditional groundfishery. It has been eight years sine the moratorium and still there are many unanswered question surrounding our groundfish stocks. It is vital that we address these questions along with other important fisheries issues in a collaborative effort. We must apply the lessons we have learned form the past in managing our fishery today with conservation being the key principle. Fisheries Forum 2000 illustrates our commitment to the need for public input on such a critical issue.

I want to state clearly, Mr. Speaker, that my department noted every concern and policy issue that were identified at Fisheries Forum 2000 and we will follow up on these issues in a timely fashion with industry. My department will continue to be pro-active in addressing the challenges of our fishery in a prudent and responsible manner.

To ensure a sustainable, viable fishery for the future, we need a commitment from everybody in the industry and I am proud to say that such a commitment was very evident at Fisheries Forum 2000. I commend the participants for their interest and look forward to continue working with the stakeholders in our fishery, because I believe that together we can create a sustainable fishery that will benefit future generations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that I, too, attended most of the activities down at the hotel for the Fisheries Forum 2000. This is an industry where we have many problems. Even after eight years of a downturn in the groundfish industry, and the devastation that has been caused to communities and people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of those problems are still very evident.

Any time you can bring the stakeholders together, sit with the decision-makers and discuss problems, it has to be positive; because many of the problems that existed prior to 1992 are still there today.

I have attended many of those forums, year after year; they were held in Clarenville. Many of the same problems, I say to the minister, that were brought up in those first forums came on the floor of your forum and the Fisheries Forum 2000 down at the Newfoundland Hotel. I wonder how far or how fast we are moving ahead, when you see the topic of what gear we are allowed to use in the year 2000 in order to go out and fish cod stocks and other groundfish stocks. We don't know yet, Mr. Speaker, if people are allowed to use gill nets or if they are not allowed to use gill nets. We don't know yet if people should be allowed to go and build a boat that will allow them to be able to fish with some degree of comfort and safety, or if they are going to have to go and plead to the federal minister and say: Please, get off my back, get out of my pocket, and let me build a boat and fish a boat that will allow me to provide myself and my crew with some degree of comfort and safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a disaster waiting to happen, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. When you see the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Fisheries Forum 2000 obviously underscores the great interest and concern about the most important industry in our Province. Given the state of the groundfish stocks, and particularly the moratorium over the last number of years, it is inevitable that issues of conversation and harvesting would be to the forefront.

We also have to look as well, though, at issues of developing new products and new markets for those products. I would encourage the minister to consider the whole issue of research and development in new products, and finding some role for the provincial government in helping support that effort as well, because it is only through additional new products will we be having more value added to our fishing industry and create even more jobs from the billion dollar industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform hon. members about several upcoming trade initiatives that my department will be participating in with companies from across Newfoundland and Labrador.

This week, officials from my department, together with representatives from three environmental companies, are attending Globe 2000 in Vancouver. This event is the world's premier international conference and trade fair on developing the environmental sector.

Over the next eight to ten years, the worldwide demand for environmental technologies, products, and services is expected to grow by 8 per cent annually. We are fortunate to have more than 130 companies operating in the environmental industry in this Province. These companies have a diverse range of environmental products and services that can meet this growing demand.

Already, our environmental sector contributes an estimated $80 million to $100 million to our economy. Globe 2000 is a chance for our local companies to explore new export opportunities for their products and services, and for us to showcase our industry's exciting work.

This initiative is being supported through the Canada/Atlantic Province's COOPERATION Agreement on International Business Development.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I will be leading a delegation of twelve provincial companies and organizations to Boston for BIO 2000, one of the leading international conferences and exhibitions for the biotechnology industry. This year's event is expected to be the largest ever, with approximately 7,000 industry leaders and executives representing 2,000 companies from forty countries.

Our Province is one of Canada's leaders in marine biotechnology, and Memorial University of Newfoundland houses Centres of Excellence which work in partnership with our local companies in their research.

This conference will help us to position Newfoundland and Labrador as a centre of marine biotechnology excellence to an international audience.

Funding through the Canada/Newfoundland Comprehensive Economic Development Agreement is being provided to the Province's newly formed biotechnology industry association, Bio-East, to represent the industry at this important conference.

Mr. Speaker, the New England Food Service Promotion 2000, hosted by the Epicurean Club of Massachusetts, is also taking place in Boston next week. It is being sponsored by Agriculture Canada in conjunction with the Canadian Consul General in Boston.

Through support from my department's Marketing and Product Development Program, several companies from Newfoundland and Labrador will be attending the one-day educational seminar. It is aimed at informing Canadian food suppliers about entering the New England market.

These international events will help to build on the New England Trade and Investment Strategy which I announced last fall. This will enable us to optimize export opportunities for local companies, provide possible leads for New England businesses to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador, and increase awareness about our Province's high quality products and services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The products that are provided by Newfoundland companies are quality products. The services that Newfoundlanders provide are quality services and our labour force provides a quality labour. That is evident in the high demand for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout the world in their labour force. We should be promoting our products and our people to the rest of the world, and it is important to do that. Any time we can do that, it is a positive thing for industry in this Province. I am not sure how quality - it comes from the other side; because we see a lot of these trips, a lot of these trade missions, and yet we have been told that Newfoundland falls behind in growth to trade to the United States from what other provinces are experiencing since free trade has been brought in.

While I feel this is a positive initiative, maybe we can be doing even more than we are doing to promote our products. Maybe we can be doing even more than we are doing to promote the services and labour abilities that this Province has to offer throughout the United States to catch up with other provinces, the growth that other provinces have experienced in the United States in export since free trade has been brought in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been on record many times as supporting the efforts of government and the trade missions to promote our industries. We have also been asking for a report card from the minister on the issue of trade and what kind of trade increases we have seen through the various sectors that we have, and I hope the minister, at some point, is going to give us one.

We also need some strong policies as we move into new areas as well, such as biotechnology and genetic research. We have yet to see, as well, any significant statement by this government as to how the whole issue of genetic research should be handled so that we can have maximum benefits in this Province and also some control over the genetic resource that is here for research and development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Education, I would like to invite all Members of the House of Assembly, and all members of the general public, to support the School Lunch Association's SKIP-A-LUNCH campaign, and donate the money they usually spend on lunch to the St. John's School Lunch Association. While today is SKIP-A-LUNCH day, the invitation to support this program is open for any day of the year.

This is the 3^rd annual SKIP-A-LUNCH event held by The School Lunch Association to raise awareness of the issue of child poverty and its effect on children's education, and to raise funds in support of the Hot Lunch Program operated by the association in city schools.

This event is endorsed by the Premier and Mrs. Tobin, the entire Liberal caucus, the Department of Education, and many prominent figures from the political, business, arts, entertainment, and media communities.

Government's support of school meal programs is evidenced by our recent endowment of $1 million to the School Children's Food Foundation. This is in addition to the $1 million endowment granted in 1998. As well, government gives an annual grant of $75,000 to the School Lunch Association.

The School Lunch Association was founded in 1989 by a small committee of individuals who recognized the correlation between hunger and a child's ability to learn. The association helps children take full advantage of their educational opportunities by operating a non-stigmatizing program that provides hot, nutritious lunches to children at school, regardless of their families' ability to pay.

Mr. Speaker, we encourage everyone to support the SKIP-A-LUNCH program.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the Ministerial Statement given by the hon. Judy Foote and I appreciate it coming into my hands prior to entering the House.

The SKIP-A-LUNCH program obviously is a wonderful initiative to bring to the attention of the entire Province the problems that we have in making sure that the children of this Province have adequate nourishment so they can learn in a positive way.

I would like to add the support of the members on this side of the House to the SKIP-A-LUNCH program. I guess I live for the day when this valuable service might be universal for all the students in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I draw particular attention to the rural areas of our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I draw particular attention to the rural areas of our Province. The recent moves to restructure have created some large regional schools that are causing long bus rides. It is very important, when these children get to the schools they are going to, that they do have the proper nourishment to go on for their particular day.

Again, I encourage this government to look at the possibility of providing a universal program to all students.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have supported the St. John's School Lunch Association who introduced the concept of a stigma-free lunch program, and support the SKIP-A-LUNCH day, but we want to see a universal, comprehensive school lunch program for which we have been campaigning for two or three years.

The Member for Humber East today talked about a program in his district that has taken forty-three community partners in order to be able to make happen.

It is obvious that in very many parts of this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland, there cannot be a program because there are not those partners and there are not enough volunteers.

Once again, I ask government to consider a universal, comprehensive program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

While today is being characterized as SKIP-A-LUNCH day, yesterday can be characterized as skip-the-details day. Let me tell you that now. We would like to unveil some of that today with respect to the Budget.

My questions are for the acting Minister of Finance. In about two years from now, when the Auditor General reports on what the actual deficit was in this Budget - she did it last year, she will do it this year, a year or so later - she will report that the actual deficit on this year's Budget is not $35 million, as projected by this government, but it will be more in the vicinity of about $325 million. Here is how she will arrive at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now.

One-time draw down measures; structural problems that we are going to be left to deal with when this Premier is gone somewhere else, that is the problem.

I would like to ask the acting Minister of Finance: What will be the actual Budget deficit, the consolidated revenue of the Province, for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, in all seriousness, I am absolutely, completely confused by the position of the Opposition.

Yesterday, the former Leader of the Opposition and the current health critic criticized the Budget for not spending enough on health care and enough on social programs. The current, for the moment, Leader of the Opposition today is saying that we spent too much. In fact, he announced yesterday that we are mortgaging our future.

So we have the Opposition health critic saying we are not doing enough for health care and education and we have the current Leader of the Opposition saying we are doing too much, we have mortgaged our future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should listen, on a matter as important as a budget, to the views of partisan politicians on either side of the House, so let's examine what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said. Peter O'Brien: This is my twenty-fifth year at the Newfoundland Budget, and from a small business point of view this is the best one I've seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Let's examine what the NLTA says. The NLTA says: A good Budget. Let's examine what the Board of Trade says. The Board of Trade says: A superb Budget. Let's examine what the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters says: A superb Budget. Let's examine -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: May I conclude, Sir?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, conclude quickly please.

PREMIER TOBIN: An the bond rating agencies have raised our rating for the first time in years because of these excellent budgets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Let's not forget; John Peddle said yesterday: We will look at our deficits and we will come back to government and say: You tell us what services we are going to have to cut in health care.

What did the president of the nurses' association say yesterday?

Mr. Speaker, if we want to grandstand in Question Period, then both of us can do it. Let me ask him this question: If we talk about being financially accountable for the people's money in this House, how much more money could we have put in health care had we not wasted in excess of $50 million in decisions that wronged people who were trying to do business with government? How much more money could we put in health care and education services had the money that this government loaned out had been done appropriately, had been done in a way that would garner back, had been done in a way that could create jobs?

Mr. Speaker, it didn't happen. This government in the last two years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - has wasted in excess of $100 million of the people's money. Let me ask the Premier this. Where could that money have gone in terms of health and education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that all of those in the House and all of those who listen to the House have just seen an incredible display. In the space of one question and one answer the Leader of the Opposition has already lost his train of thought. He began in the first question saying that we have mortgaged our future, we have spent too much on health and education, we have a $350 million deficit, and by question number two he is asking how much more can we spend in health care. I assume he has consulted the former Leader of the Opposition. He might want to consult with one of the future leaders of the Opposition and find out that, in fact, this Budget is a sound budget. It represents the best fiscal performance over four years - because of the good work of the previous Minister of Finance, together with the current Minister of Finance - since Confederation, the strongest growth rate since Confederation and the best performance in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Let me consult directly with the Premier, probably a future Leader of the Opposition, and ask him this question. Yesterday the Budget included a $40 million tax cut, which is something that we felt was necessary and which is something that we felt the Province needed directly in terms of payroll tax, but government has played a shell game and here is how they have done it. The tax cut, on the one hand, gives everybody an equal break. It is more than offset by revenues, one-time expenditures they are taking on the other hand. For example, yesterday, in the Budget they announced a one-time levee of about $85 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, double what the tax break is.

I would like to ask the former Minister of Finance this question: The last time that we did this under a former administration, a former premier, that money was passed on by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to Newfoundland and Labrador Power, then Newfoundland and Labrador Power passed it on to the Public Utilities Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Public Utilities Board passed it on to us. My question is this: Isn't it a fact that for every dollar the provincial government has given people in the tax break, the levees they have introduced on Hydro and others will be passed back to every consumer in this Province on (inaudible)? Isn't that a fact, and isn't that is what is going to take place over the next several months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if you have a budget which is well presented, carefully thought out, and which responds to the needs of the people of the Province by both providing for a tax break of $60 million this year - $42 million of which comes from the provincial treasury - and provides for significant reinvestment, tens of millions of dollars, in health care, that sometimes the smart thing to do, one that demonstrates a degree of wisdom and maturity about the political process, is to stand up and say: It is a pretty good budget, now let's get on to other business. To stand and try and make, as the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do, a sow's ear out of what is clearly a silk purse is silly and a waste of time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am beat up over that comment.

Let me ask the Premier this question. Has he got assurances then from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the extra levee that they have taken from them that that won't be passed on to Newfoundland Power and all consumers?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now, it is! Extra dividends. They will be paying an extra $85 million this year that they didn't pay last year. That won't be passed on to consumers and that every person in this Province will not see an increase in their electricity bills? Is that the guarantee this Premier and this government got from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that instead of the Province drawing down all the money that could have been drawn down - in fact, as most thoughtful commentators pointed out yesterday, we deferred drawing down money we could have drawn down. We could have registered a surplus this year in excess of $100 million - $161 million to be exact - but instead we made many one-time payments, many one-time purchases - in particular in the area of health care, but in other areas as well - and beyond that we deferred taking down money this year and instead pushed it into next year to ensure our continued fiscal stability next year. It is the exact opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition has suggested.

Finally, since this Administration has come to office we have negotiated with Hydro-Quebec two new initiatives which have flowed more money to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The first is a recall of 127 megawatts of power under the existing Upper Churchill contract, which last year flowed $27 million through Hydro to the people of the Province; and the second is something called a Guaranteed Winter Availability Contact which, as it matures, will flow another $34 million a year to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to stand up and give the suggestion that a tax break is going to be cancelled by an increase in electricity rates, if he wants to try and do that and strain his own credibility, he can, but I tell him it is simply not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have been here before, five years ago, prior to this member coming into the House. We have been here, we have the tee shirt, we have done it. Now the question is this, simply put. You have no guarantee that these costs will not be passed on. That is what the Premier said.

I would like to ask him a question with respect to payroll tax. We called for the elimination of the payroll tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Get real. I will not even respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier a question with respect to the payroll tax. A number of people have been eliminated from the payroll tax and we applaud it, I say to the Premier. In terms of where you have increased on resource industries, did you consult with the resource industries where you have doubled the payroll tax from 1 per cent to 2 per cent, such as on Abitibi, fisheries companies, those people who yesterday the minister said are doing very well? Is there going to be any adverse impact in terms of their commentary to you based upon the increase in the payroll tax to them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is now acknowledging that 85 per cent - 85 per cent - of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer be paying the payroll tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am glad to have that acknowledgment. Those who will continue to pay are amongst the larger businesses, and as we can afford to take it off them, we will. Beyond that, moving the rate being paid from 1 per cent to 2 per cent simply equalizes the rate for everybody in the Province.

The payroll tax was reduced from 2 per cent to 1 per cent in the 1990s when the fishing industry was in great difficulty in this Province. By the way, so was the forestry sector. Today the fishery sector has produced export sales in excess of $1 billion. Crab and, as we know, shrimp are very high-value, high-price products, and the forestry industry is enjoying its best prices ever today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Finally, this recommendation to go from 1 per cent to 2 per cent was given to government by a panel of labour, business and other outside sectors who made the recommendations to this government.

One final point, if I can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: It is this party over here, with respect to electricity prices - and by the way, we are wondering why you have not raised the question yet - which says we have to build a transmission line from Labrador to Newfoundland, no matter what the cost, and no matter what it does to electricity prices in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Not this party taking that kind of silly position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. The Estimates here show that $31.7 million extra will be put into health care in this year's Budget compared to last year's actual revised amount that was spent. This money will be spread across all institutions, community health boards, including of course the new areas that just came on this past couple of years. Child welfare, community and corrective services and family rehabilitative services are all in that pot. Hospital boards can expect, if they are lucky, probably even to get $20 million of that amount.

I ask the minister: Does he think they can run the health care system that we have now on that amount of money that they are allocating?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I might allow, in the supplementary, for the Opposition critic to explain whether he thinks it can run or not. Because he is on the record in this Legislature suggesting that there is $100 million already in our system that is being wasted in health care alone, not like the Leader of the Opposition trying to be cute. He can refer to Hansard on March 28, when the Member for Ferryland, the former Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Health critic, in a heated debate over health care, stated quite clearly for the record in this Legislature that he feels and that party feels that there is $100 million in the health care budget today being absolutely wasted, and that is his position. So maybe he can answer his own question: Does he think there is enough money in the system to adequately run all the components of health care, knowing that we are already wasting $100 million, by his record -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister -

MR. GRIMES: - and we are going to put in $30 million more, maybe to waste that too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maclean's magazine says 40 per cent of dollars spent in health care in this country - $30 million. They say between $400 million and $500 million, the survey with Maclean's magazine, I might add.

Trans City, I might tell him, spent $30-some million extra by giving it to a higher bidder and we are still paying on lease fees to this day. We have facilities in this Province under that contract, I say to the minister - in St. Lawrence one-quarter of the beds never opened to this day - and we are still paying on that debt. Add this and compound that over that time and that will get you one-third of your money right there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Hospital boards give you a prioritized list of services that government may have to cut if it cannot afford to pay for them. I ask the minister: What services, with the money they are given now, are you going to eliminate? And when are you going to do it?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased again to hear the line of questioning because now he has already changed again from suggesting that there is $100 million wasted to saying that we do not have enough money and we are going to have to cut out some services. Again I am puzzled by the approach taken by the Opposition.

It seems a pretty straightforward choice. As a matter of fact, I have made the offer, in all seriousness, to the member opposite. I said: Listen, I do believe that you are serious person, that you have taken your job seriously in the last few years, and that you have some real ideas about how to improve health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have made the offer, Mr. Speaker, that if wants to come over on this side of the floor - I would encourage the Premier and my colleagues to take him - I would resign this position and he can become the Minister of Health and Community Services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and he can tell the world where the $100 million is wasted and what he is going to cut out of the system, Mr. Speaker, if he wants the job.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Just so it is clear for the record, we are not giving up $10 to take two cents, Mr. Speaker. There is no trade happening right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a final supplementary.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are giving up a superb minister to take no cents or nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the people you left behind in the Department of Mines and Energy are just as puzzled. When you had the Department of Education, they are every bit as puzzled as you are, I might add. He wreaked devastation in the departments, and the Premier knows quite well what I am talking about there, I can tell you.

Now, Minister, once you allow for inflationary costs, there is less money in the health care budget to operate it this year than there was last year. Boards will have no choice but to run up deficits to pay for these services, and that is well established. They can tell you that themselves, and they have said it.

I ask the minister: Where are you going to get the money, for instance next year, now that you have drawn down $42 million of money that was allocated for future funding?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only assume, using the logic that the Opposition is following today, that the commentary with respect to my performance in other portfolios prior to this is probably meant to be a compliment. I can assume that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: If we follow the same argument and the same logic as the rest of the questions, I take it as a compliment, Mr. Speaker. In fact, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always listen carefully to the questions because I am always open to good suggestions and good ideas that will be helpful to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am assuming - and I would like the record of Hansard to show this clearly - that the Opposition Health critic just stated that, if he was the Minister of Health, he would not draw down the full $44 million this year for health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't ask that.

MR. GRIMES: Well, that is what you just said. You just said: What are you going to do?

What I am assuming is that the position of the Official Opposition is that if they were the government they would not draw the full $44 million. We would have even bigger deficits in health care and elsewhere, and we would have even a bigger problem to try to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, we will stand by our record and we will work with the boards.

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 acting Minister of Education. Minister, your government approved $5.5 million to build a new school in Old Perlican to serve students in the lower Trinity area. At least three-quarters of the parents in the zone are opposed to busing their children to that location and were never properly consulted before the decision was made by the board.

Will your government, Minister, rescind the decision to spend $5.5 million on a school which parents do not want, at least until all parents are properly consulted and receive a full account of how their interest will be best served by sending their children to this new school?

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the decision has been made to spend $5.5 million on a new school, but the decision has not been taken which schools will close. The consultation has not taken place yet. It will take place next week, and all of the concerned parents will have the opportunity to be consulted. As a matter of fact, the decision will be taken by the school board on April 11.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Dr. Rideout, Director of Education, has said: The new school is happening. We are just waiting to conclude the catchment area. Do you think the board will vote down this notice of motion when over $250,000 has gone into this project already? That would be a waste of money.

Minister, is it your government's policy to literally put the cart before the horse, to approve a school without knowing who is going in it?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I again inform the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne that yes, a school will be built; $5.5 million has been allocated. The decision has not been taken which schools will close. Consultation will take place with any concerned parents who want to be consulted and to participate in that decision. That will happen next week. The board will make a decision on April 11.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Dr. Rideout, Director of Avalon West: The consultation process gives lots of time for parents' input. The board has decided that meetings where dialogue takes place is unproductive.

Again, I ask you, Minister: Is the government going to allow this to continue? Are you going to condone perhaps a wasteful expenditure of public money?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that Dr. Rideout is an employee of the board. The board has not made the decision. The board will consult with the parents. The decision will be made by the board on April 11.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and concerns the development of our offshore oil and gas. We have seen how few benefits have flowed to this Province from the floating platform system for Terra Nova. Now we are faced with a second proposal for a floating platform for White Rose which cannot develop our significant offshore gas reserves and is certain to have less design and construction jobs here than a GBS.

Given the presence of new players who want to bring both gas and oil ashore now with significant construction and onshore industrial benefits, will his government play an active role in this project to ensure that we will have an oil and gas industry here onshore in our Province, or is he going to watch while the oil industry treats Newfoundland and Labrador as an extraction point only for oil and gas, and the last extraction point to pump gas into the Nova Scotia-US pipeline when they get around to it?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, there is a process for a hearing to go to the C-NOPB. All the issues that the hon. member has raised will be examined and at the end of that process we will make an appropriate decision.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the minister and the government are depending on the C-NOPB to look after the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador then I am very worried, and I am sure most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are as well. Because as we know, the C-NOPB has been proven to be a toothless tiger when it comes to protecting the best interests of jobs and benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is this minister, and is this government, prepared to do anything to ensure that the C-NOPB does its job? Is it prepared to use its veto power ultimately to make sure that a proper job is done, to ensure that we have benefits in this Province, an onshore oil and gas industry that benefits us, and not a jobless growth with a gross domestic product based on the value of oil that we have given away with very little in the terms of benefits?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NOPB is a forum where this information is brought forward. There are proponents who would suggest that a gravity based system would, in the long run, better facilitate the development of natural gas. That is something that will be examined there. The evidence will be brought forward, C-NOPB will hear it, and the record will come to us ultimately for a decision. When we have all the information, and not like the hon. member, when we know all the facts, when we are in a position to make a consideration and reflect on those to make an appropriate judgement, we will do so, but we will not stand in the House and say we prefer A to B when we don't know the facts supporting either.

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

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

My questions are to the President of Treasury Board. In January the government made a grand orchestrated production when it gave a commitment to the reclassification of nursing and social worker positions in the Province. Since there was no specific mention of this commitment in the Budget yesterday, nor was there any specific allocation of funds, and given the assumption that reclassification should result in higher wage benefits, can we assume the commitment made in January to reclassify these workers was more window dressing, another way to keep nurses and social workers quiet for a few more months than to address their real concerns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to address my hon. colleague opposite and say to him that the letter that was given to the nurses and the President of NAPE on February 17 by this government indicated that we would conduct a full occupational study for those professions. The time limit we gave at that time was August. We are in the middle of doing a very comprehensive study. Although our Budget did not indicate that there were funds available, we have within our fiscal framework an ability to do that. Of course, we would not pre-judge or speculate on the outcome of that classification review.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.

I listened in the lobby in the latter part of January when you gave the public service pensioners a commitment that they would be very happy when the news came forward in the Budget. How can you convince nurses and social workers and other allied health care professionals that your commitment to them will be any more believable and effective than your commitments and comments at the public forum outside of the House were to the public service pensioners in that meeting you had with them in January?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the commitment that we gave to nurses, social workers and other health care professionals is one that we will live up to and it is no different than the requests that we receive. We receive hundreds of requests throughout the year for classification reviews. I can tell the member opposite that the union is very comfortable with government's decision to undertake this study. We will meet the commitments that are within this study and we will deliver it on time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

In July 1998, Madam Minister, the nursing faculty at MUN submitted an application for reclassification where job descriptions and qualifications change dramatically in recent years. Your department to date has not even given them the courtesy of a reply. Should all nurses, social workers and other allied health care professionals be as skeptical of your current reclassification commitments as those associated with the nursing faculty at MUN when you did not even reply to their letter?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised here today to hear the line of questioning from the member opposite. He has absolutely no questions from yesterday's Budget to ask concerning the many things that happened yesterday and the many announcements this government made.

All classification requests that are sent to Treasury Board are held in the very strictest confidence and they are dealt with immediately. The reference that the member opposite is making to the nurses in general has been provided. Nurses are comfortable with the commitment that government has made. I would suggest to the member opposite that he wait and see the outcome of that review.

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

There is time for one quick question.

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

My question today is for the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. In section 3.10 of her latest report, the Auditor General condemned the government for failing to go through a thorough approval process, get sufficient information, or put proper security measures in place before approving loans and investments under Development and Rural Renewal. Why did you allow your department not to follow proper procedure, thereby losing some $60 million - and I repeat that, $60 million - of taxpayers monies out the door?

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

MR. TULK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Member for Cape St. Francis that we do take very seriously the work of the Auditor General. As a matter of fact, we take her work so seriously that I think through the IEC this year and through the -

PREMIER TOBIN: Through the budget process.

MR. TULK: - budget process - I hope you get back to the questions, and I will tell you - we do respect her opinions, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, we have increased the budget so that she can do the job that needs to be done to -

PREMIER TOBIN: Another $200,000.

MR. TULK: Another $200,000 to see that the job is done properly in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me also say to the hon. gentleman that if he read the Budget yesterday, this great Budget which got such great praise from around the Province, he will notice that we respect the opinion of the Auditor General so much and are concerned so much that the SEDF that she talked about is no longer in existence.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 273(3) of the Elections Act, 1991, I hereby table the Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Office on Elections Finances for the period January 1 to December 31, 1998.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I'm supposed to give notice today, but I would hope that both of the groups in the Opposition - I know the Leader of the Opposition - well, I haven't had a chance to talk to the Leader of the NDP. I'm naming the committees and I would hope that he would give notice for us to put those and vote on them today.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the following committees be composed of the following members:

Government Services Committee: Mr. Eddie Joyce, Member for Bay of Islands; Mr. Harvey Hodder, Member for Waterford Valley; Mr. Ralph Wiseman, Member for Topsail; Mr. Paul Shelley, Member for Baie Verte; Mr. Wally Anderson, Member for Torngat Mountains; Mr. Jack Byrne, Member for Cape St. Francis; Mr. Tom Lush, Member for Terra Nova.

Resource Committee: Mr. Bob Mercer, Member for Humber East; Mr. Roger Fitzgerald, Member for Bonavista South; Ms Yvonne Jones, Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Mr. Ray Hunter, Member for Windsor-Springfield; Mr. Percy Barrett, Member for Bellevue; Mr. Bob French, Member for Conception Bay South; Mr. Ralph Wiseman, Member for Topsail.

Social Services Committee: Mr. George Sweeney, Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; Ms Sheila Osborne, Member for St. John's West; Mr. Jim Walsh, Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island; Mr. Tom Hedderson, Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne; Mr. Gerald Smith, Member for Port au Port; Mr. Randy Collins, Member for Labrador West; Mr. Gerald Reid, Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

Mr. Speaker, I would also move by leave:

(a) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Government Services Committee, and those are the same as they were last year: Finance, Works, Services and Transportation, Government Services and Lands, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Public Service Commission;

(b) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Social Services Committee: Human Resources and Employment, Education, Health and Community Services, Environment and Labour, Justice;

(c) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Resource Committee: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Technology; Mines and Energy; Development and Rural Renewal.

By leave, I move those, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The second notice - there is just one motion, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Two motions? You want to put both motions now?

The second motion is the Heads of Expenditure referred to the Government Services Committee.

All those in favor of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

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

I rise again today to present a petition which has about 100 names on it, which brings the total number of people who have signed petitions thus far that have been presented to the House to about 11,000 or more.

This petition is signed by some of the public service pensioners in the Province and it says:

WHEREAS the government of this Province has historically protected its pensioners against inflation by providing increases in pension benefits to mirror those negotiated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public Employees for its members currently employed by government;

THEREFORE we call upon the government to immediately meet with representatives of NAPE to negotiate an increase for current pensioners and to enter into negotiations with NAPE regarding indexation of current and future pensions, with no increase in contributions.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, or the last time we met when we heard petitions, I presented a petition as well. At that time we had about 100 signatures. There are another 100 signatures on this petition we have here today.

The public service pensioners met in the lobby of this House in January with the President of Treasury Board, and I happened to have been there when she met these pensioners. They all gathered around the minister and she told them that they should be happy with the good news that would be in the Budget.

In this particular case they looked forward to the Budget which was brought down yesterday.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman signed that petition?

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it is required that the member who presents a petition sign it, and all requirements that are necessary for the petition have been met. All of these matters have been attended to before the petition was presented here.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to reflect on and probably rule, if ruling is appropriate, on the issue of whether or not somebody who is purported to be a pensioner and now advocating by way of a private member's bill on the issue of pensions is not somewhat in a conflict of interest circumstance, and whether or not a presentation by that type of member in that circumstance is appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

It happens that this petition comes from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public Employees, from NAPE. I am not now a member of NAPE, have never been a member of NAPE, and I doubt if I ever will be a member of NAPE.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure if I was not listening closer to the Speaker in that regard but when I asked for a ruling on that point of order, whether or not you took it under advisement or whether or not you did rule on the point of order.

The point I am making is that, if not illegal, I am wondering to what extend it may not be immoral for a person who is in receipt of a pension -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - a very generous pension, I would suspect, from the public purse, from the Province, from all of the taxpayers of the Province, now presenting a petition in effect on his own behalf and in his own interest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if it makes the member feel happier -

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

MR. H. HODDER: - I will present the petitions to the Premier and to other members on that side who are also in receipt of pensions as they sit in this House, and then they can present them.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, in order to bring complete transparency and above-the-boardedness to this issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: Above-the boardedness? Is that a new word?

MR. MATTHEWS: - I am wondering if the hon. member won't commit here and now to give his pension so that he can legitimately and transparently present his petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, if the member allows, I can re-present it and speak for three minutes on the petition. If he is the big dipper, I am sure the Premier is the little dipper.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 1, and move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Interim Supply.

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

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

I rise today to take part in the debate on Interim Supply, a bill that comes before this House as least once a year, usually before Budget Day, a time to tie government over and to supply government cheques, if you would, to all its employees and the many people out there who are depending on government cheques and monies in order to support their families and survive themselves. I can assure you that this side of the House will not cause any undo interruption in that process.

It is time when many of us can stand and talk about any issue, since it is a money bill, that pertains to our district, or any issue of concern that has been brought forward to us as members of this House.

I suppose, when people bring forward their concerns and suggestions, they bring them forward with the hope that maybe somebody in the decision-making process on the other side of the House might listen and might pay attention to some of their concerns and frustrations that they have been facing with living in this Province today.

While we hear the Premier of the Province and the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal talk about the economy, and how well it is doing here in this Province, and I heard the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal talk about the central tiger, how vibrant the economy is in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in Central Newfoundland, I can assure you that there is certainly no economic tiger happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador when it relates to the economy moving at such a pace to see people working and people being able to go out and access jobs.

I was surprised, and I asked the question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs here a couple of days ago. I asked him about his meeting with the Minister of HRDC, the Hon. Jane Stewart, in his crusade to Ottawa last week in order to take part in a giant gala of Liberals gathered there. The minister talked about the positive meeting he had with the Minister of HRDC, and he was glowing about how concerned the minister was and how she was coming to Newfoundland, and she was going to straighten out some of the problems with the EI program. He made us believe, he sounded as though, she herself thought it was unfair to have this buildup of $26 billion in an EI account with so many people not being able to access work.

I don't know if anybody has read The Express. It is a publication here in the Mount Pearl-St. John's area. It does not go to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I think. Maybe it is a good thing that it doesn't. If anybody has not read The Express then maybe you should read the column in it that talks about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' visit and his meeting with the federal minister, his federal cousin in Ottawa, with HRD, when the minister talks about: Probably, perhaps, one way we can solve the unemployment problems here today is to have employers pay seasonal workers enough money whereby they can save enough money to tide them over until they go to work again.

Just imagine. Here we are with a minimum wage in this Province of $5.50 or $5.75 per hour. What is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five dollars and fifty cents an hour.

MR. FITZGERALD: A minimum wage of $5.50 per hour in this Province. Most of the people who are on minimum wage are working at seasonal jobs. Most seasonal operators in this Province are only surviving, only existing, I say to members opposite. What does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talk about? He talks about: Maybe one of the solutions to the problem of unemployment insurance is that we will go out and we will have those employers pay their employees enough money that will tide them over until they can go to work again.

How much money would an employer have to pay? How much money would a construction operator have to pay an employee in his fourteen or fifteen weeks' work that he is fortunate enough to get, I suppose, or unfortunate enough. I'm not so certain which word to use there. Mr. Chairman, how much money would he have to pay him in order to tide him over for the other forty weeks of the year? How unrealistic. This is coming from a minister we have asked to go to Ottawa and solve some of the problems that we are seeing involved in this Province today?

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture got up today and talked, in a Ministerial Statement, about Fisheries Forum 2000, and said what a glowing success it was. There were 300 people who attended here in St. John's the Fisheries Forum 2000 to talk about what should be done in the fishery, what we are doing wrong, what type of gear we should use, what type of boats we should use, who is listening, who is not listening. What do you want, Mr. Fisherman?

I don't know how often the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture expects fishermen and fish plant workers to come and tell their story. I don't know how long those same people should be expected to come and tell their story without some action being taken. Because there is no action being taken, I say to members opposite. The same concerns, the same problems that were brought forward back when Walter Carter was the Minister of Fisheries, then Bud Hulan, and now the saviour, the old sixty-four eleven minister is there today still talking about the same problems, still talking about the same concerns, and hasn't done one thing in order to correct it.

The philosophy of the government has not changed since the old days: Keep people humble, keep people begging, keep them coming back to you, and as long as we can give you a few crumbs on the plate, as long as we can give you some hope whereby you will keep coming back, then we will forever keep you humble, forever keep you coming out to support us because there is some hope there, then maybe that is the way that it should work. That is the philosophy of the people opposite. It is wrong. It is wrong for that approach to be taken.

Only a few weeks ago I saw the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Dhaliwal, come here to Newfoundland. He met with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and there was a big announcement made. There was a Memorandum of Understanding signed. Now, just imagine, a Memorandum of Understanding. An understanding to do what? A Memorandum of Understanding that they would work together to try to solve the problems in the fishery of this Province, in the fishery of Canada and in the fishery of the Atlantic? Why would you need somebody to come to Newfoundland to sign an Memorandum of Understanding that you work together? I always thought that this is what governments were all about. Whether you are a federal government or a provincial government, you are put in place to serve the same people, you are put in place to help the same people. I do not know why the federal minister would feel obligated to come here and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with his provincial cousin in order to solve some of the problems in an industry that has devastated rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, you go out and you see what is happening in places like Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, Duntara, Keels, Open Hall and Red Cliff, and you hear the government say: It is not government's place to create economic activity, it is not government's place to provide employment. That has to be done by the private sector. Boys, it is about time you got realistic. It is about time you started to realize that there is no such thing as the public sector to drive the economy in many places of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Tell me, I say to the minister, what private sector is going to go in to a place like Keels, Open Hall or Red Cliff and provide economic opportunity? The government has to step in and help create an atmosphere, help create an environment and provide some stimulus there in order to help the people survive and continue to live where they want to live. It is not an option for everybody to pack up and go to Toronto or to one of the western provinces. That is not an option for everybody here.

While we continue to gloat - and we share government's pride when we talk about the fishery having $1 billion in export value this year. We share in that pride because it helps some of our people as well. There one thing we have to remember. When we talk about the $1 billion and how successful this new shellfish fishery is and what it means to this Province, just think back and ask yourselves how many people are working in the industry today compared to what it was in pre-1992. I am not saying what was happening back in pre-1992 was correct and it was right. Sure there should have been changes made, sure there had to be things done differently. We could not continue the way we were. By putting forward the positive spin, we should also be reminded of the many people that are not able to take part in this industry and there has not been an alternative offered in order for them to be able to survive and support their families.

Yesterday people we waiting with baited breath for the Budget to be announced, hoping that there might be something there for them to give them a little bit of hope. To get their mother or father into a senior citizens' home, maybe to able to access home care, I say to the Minister, or get a few extra hours of home care for their loved one. Maybe the minister cannot relate to that. It is something that is foreign to him. I can tell you that not everybody out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today has the ability of people opposite to go out and hire people and pay for them to sit themselves in order to look after their sick mom or dad or somebody else in their household.

The Minister of Health, and the former Minister of Health who is walking the House now, knows full well the many times I have stood here and talked about the need to have hospital beds or senior citizens' beds opened in this Province. The rebuttal has always been: Even though there are ten beds in Bonavista we are not going to open them because the waiting list in not long enough. Just imagine, the waiting list is not long enough. Can you imagine a phone call coming and somebody saying: I need to get my mother and my father into the senior citizens home in Bonavista - there are ten vacant beds there - and the member is saying: I am sorry, I cannot do anything to help you. Your mother and father are not important because we need fourteen on the waiting list.

How silly. What a policy for government to have, I say to people opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not correct.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is true, I say to the minister. If you have one person on a waiting list, and they need to go into a government institution, and if we can afford to do it, then we should allow it to happen; not wait until there is a buildup of fourteen and then pick somebody off the bottom or off the top. That is not the way it should work.

The workers, union workers -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. leave.

CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted to continue to listen to the great comments by my colleague from Bonavista South, who was just getting wound up, because he has so many issues in his district and he brings them so powerfully to our caucus. In fact, at every single caucus meeting, the Member for Bonavista South has to have a special time when he can say: Here are the concerns of the people in my district, and home care and care for people who need it is always at the top of his priority.

Mr. Chairman, I can say that representation in our caucus for those people who are disadvantaged, for those people who need a hand up, and for those people who need extra assistance, nobody in our caucus has a stronger consciousness than the Member for Bonavista South. This member is a caring, sensitive individual.

I see that the Minister of Fisheries would not give the Member for Bonavista South leave to continue the dissertation that he was making on behalf of the poor, and the people who are disadvantaged in his district. It is certainly regrettable in this House when a member is standing and saying, on behalf of his constituents, I want the government to listen, and then when a minister says no, you cannot have leave because I do not want to listen to that kind of stuff, that is indeed very regrettable.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side want to make some comments during the Interim Supply. I note that during the Interim Supply thus far there has not been one single speaker from the government side. When the minister introduced the bill, the minister made a few preliminary comments, very preliminary, about three to five minutes. Thus far, we have not had one single speaker on the government side stand and support this Interim Supply Bill. Now, what does that say? Either they are not convinced that they need this money - and if they do not get their money by next week, they will say to the Opposition: Oh, by the way, we have to have it by a certain date because we have to go and process the procedural motions and get everything put in action so we can pay people who are on the payroll. Not one single member, other than the Minister of Finance when he introduced the bill, has stood and said why they need all that money in the various categories.

Mr. Chairman, we have been anticipating all day when we sat here on Tuesday that some member from the government side would stand up and say why we need money in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, why we need money in health, why we need all this money that is there, $1 billion of it, and why it is needed in the various categories that are listed, but not one single member stood.

When I see the Member for Bonavista South get up to make representation behalf of his constituents, and say they he wants to make representation on behalf of the people in his district who are in need, who have desperate conditions that they live under, and they want to have help for their elderly, help for their disadvantaged, then I see a minister say no, you cannot have leave. What you are saying is not very important, apparently, is the message he is communicating to my good colleague from Bonavista South.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we on this side again want to represent ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is what my colleague from Bonavista South was trying to do when he was interrupted by procedural matters when he was not allowed to speak.

Mr. Chairman, when I finish in another couple of minutes, I am hoping that someone on the government side will have the courage, will have the responsibility, to rise. Maybe a minister will rise. Maybe a minister will say this is why we need this Interim Supply. To date, not one single minister has risen in their place, other than the Minister of Finance; not one single backbencher has gotten up and said why you need the money. There has been no comment whatsoever, so we have a government that is saying to the Opposition that we are going to merely put the motions to the House, we are not going to support them. All that they are doing is sitting there, occupying places, and we have no comments whatsoever by people who are in the back benches, by the Cabinet ministers, justifying why we should vote for this Interim Supply motion.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is very regrettable, because on Tuesday afternoon there were eight opportunities for someone on the government side to stand up. There were eight chances on Tuesday afternoon, and not one single member on the government side stood in their place to stand up and justify why they need this money. They did not support their own motion. What does that say about the government? They are either lethargic, disinterested, don't know what it is all about, have lost interest in the procedures of this House, or else they are simply saying: Well, we can just sit on our backsides because when the time comes to vote we will do whatever the Government House Leader tells us to do and we will stand in our places. In the meantime, they will just simply do nothing.

MR. J. BYRNE: Harvey, they couldn't care less.

MR. H. HODDER: My good colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the finance critic, says it shows that they don't care what happens in this particular matter. I believe the Member for Cape St. Francis is nearer to the truth than many would have us believe.

I am sure the Minister of Fisheries will be anxious to get up in his place and show why he needs money in Interim Supply for his department. I am sure that, when the time comes, he will justify as well why he would not give the Member for Bonavista South some leave so he could continue to represent the good people of Bonavista South in this Legislature in the way he usually does, very forcefully, very aggressively, standing up for the ordinary person. Certainly his constituents are number one in his mandate and he does a very find job.

I look forward to again being able to hear, in the near future, the Member for Bonavista South continue his address in this House and I thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: There you go. It is guaranteed to help. That's right, I agree with you.

I listened to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, and there has to be something moving, some movement taking place, because he didn't get up and talk about anything in relation to the Budget, anything in relation to his speech, but what the Member for Bonavista South said, and the contribution he makes to his district and to the less advantaged people in the Province, now that sends a message. He is either assuming there is going to be a leadership debate coming up some time in the year 2000 and he is positioning himself for some delegates, but I can assure the hon. member one thing -

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, there is no leadership on the move in this Party, but I would say if there was, my chances of winning are a lot better than his chances of winning on that side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I didn't say there was a leadership debate upcoming. What I said was that he is assuming there is going to be one coming up. I didn't say there was one coming up, but I can assure the hon. member one thing, one thing right here and now this afternoon, of all members on the opposite side, he is the one who stands the least chance of winning. Let me say to the hon. member, he shouldn't get too proud, he shouldn't stick the chest out too far, because there are a lot of fellows, a lot of members opposite - the Member for St. John's South, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne - young people up-and-coming who have a lot more, new, fresh thoughts than the hon. Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I have to rise again because I am anxious to get the member's notes and his press conference notes when he called a press conference to announce that he wasn't going to run. I want to have those notes so that when the time comes I can call a similar conference to announce that I am not going to run. Maybe he can send over the same notes he used so I can reuse them, if need be. I don't think that the member here has any interest in that kind of (inaudible). We have a great leader, a young leader, a leader who is going to carry us into victory, and that is the only concern that the Minister of Fisheries has. Because he is afraid that we will hang on to this leader and this leader is going to lead us to victory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Let me say to the Opposition House Leader that he knows what it is like to get run over. You know what all of that is about, sir. Let me say to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley once again: You don't get on the track because you wouldn't even see the train coming. It would just swoop over you.

Let's get back to the issue at hand. The Member for Bonavista South made a number of comments today. He made some comments when I gave the Ministerial Statement. When he made his comments he talked about no action in the fishery in the Province. He said it again, that we are not taking any action.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never?

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. He mentioned that on two or three occasions in his ten minute debate.

MR. FITZGERALD: You called a meeting to protect yourself from the small boat owners. You know why you called it. That is why I referred to you as the sixty-four eleven minister.

MR. EFFORD: There is a funny thing about it, Mr. Chairman. I go out to the District of Port de Grave, get angry, and I am the minister of the small boat fishermen. I go down to a community where there are small boat fishermen and you called and accused as the minister of sixty-four foot elevens.

MR. FITZGERALD: They are all right.

MR. EFFORD: They are all right. There you go.

Let's compare the fishery of today to the fishery of the past. Let me give you some statistics on the fishery of today and the fishery of the past.

MR. FITZGERALD: What you should do is talk about the issues that came forward since you have been minister and talk about the ones that have been solved, minister.

MR. EFFORD: The what?

MR. FITZGERALD: Talk about some of the issues, like boat size. Talk about the issues of gear sizes.

MR. EFFORD: That is what I am going to talk about.

MR. FITZGERALD: Talk about the issues like the type of gear you are allowed to use. Talk about the issues on the sale of the blueback seals. Talk about all those issues. You tell me what you have brought to the table in order to solve those problems and how many of them have been solved. That is just a few that I rhymed off the top of my head.

MR. EFFORD: Are you ready now?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, go ahead.

MR. EFFORD: Give me a minute or two and I will.

Let's talk about 1995. I was appointed minister in 1996.

MR. FITZGERALD: You weren't the minister in 1995.

MR. EFFORD: Let me give you some numbers. Peak employment in the fish processing in 1995 was 7,500 people. In 1999, there were 16,700 people employed. There is an increase of approximately 10,000 people employed in the processing sector in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1999. I remember in 1992 when the moratorium was called by the then-Minister of Fisheries, John Crosby, and the comments made around the Province was: She is gone, boy, she is gone, she is all over, boys, we are all going to give up.

Well, we have gone from a moratorium in 1992 to a $1 billion industry in 1999, and growing, Mr. Chairman. Keep on growing. What are the changes in attitudes in the fishing industry today compared to then? In the fishing industry in 1992 everybody had it all given up. What have I done since I became Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture? What is one of the things that was lacking in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador? Respect. Respect for the fishing industry, respect for the fish itself. There was a lack of respect for the marketplace. What have we done? We have changed the attitude of the fisherman in this Province and everybody in the fishing industry where we are not producing a second, third, or fourth quality product; we are producing a supreme quality product for the first time in the history of the Province which is beneficial to everybody in this industry.

MR. FITZGERALD: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister a question. If he is producing this great quality product he is talking about today, how can he respond to my question, which will be: How come 70 per cent of the cod caught in 3PS last year shipped out in cod block, the lowest form of package that you can put forward in the market today?

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I will answer the question.

In 1996-1997, we came forth with a quality initiative program for all species of fish. We emphasized the need to harvest a top quality product of fish in this Province, for all species. We emphasized that it is not only the responsibility of the people in the boats, it is the responsibility of the people who unload the fish, the people who truck the fish, the processors, everybody from the time the fish comes out of the water until it hits the marketplace. Everybody must play a role.

The one thing that you cannot do a lot about is the temperature of the water. If a fish comes out of that water, if it is such a texture because of the high temperatures, then there is not a lot you can do about it except close a particular fishery. Closing a fishery in a time of the year when the temperature of water is not conducive to bringing in a quality product must be done. We certainly did that in 1998. In 1999 in 3PS one of the problems was that the temperature of the water caused the meat of the fish to break down.

The other thing that is causing a major problem out there is gill nets. I have been a strong opponent to gill nets from day one. Back in the 1950s, when I fished with my father, I said there is no way anybody should be allowed to use gill nets. The argument was being made day after day, week after week, that gill nets can be fished responsibly. I have not seen any evidence of gill nets being fished responsibly in the fishery. Because if you have 1,000 gill nets in the water and 50 per cent of those are used the way fisherman say they can use them, in order to bring in fish you will always get a percentage of the fisherman not doing what is right.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave denied.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on the Interim bill, in particular with regard to education. I notice that there is a fair amount of money put aside to prepare, I assume, for next year's school year. It is kind of worrisome when I look at the preparation for next year. The report that was promised for February that would be duly debated prior to the Budget did not appear. The Williams-Sparks report has been delayed until the end of this month - a little later on next year. It is worrisome because a delay of this nature certainly indicates that the government is not prepared to more forward with initiatives that are certainly needed at this particular time.

I go back to 1992 when the original Williams report was released. There was great hype over that particular report because with its 200-plus recommendations it certainly gave this Province an opportunity to leap ahead in education, to be on the leading edge. I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that this was in 1992, eight years ago. I would say to this House that the majority of those recommendations have fallen to the wayside, and had that report been given the due that it should have been we would not be in the state we are in at this particular time regarding education.

It is not only the Williams Report, because during the 1990s there were numerous reports that were brought forth regarding education. I reference, in particular, the Canning Report, crisis in the classroom from the NLTA and other reports as well that clearly set direction as to where the education system in Newfoundland should indeed be going at this particular time.

Unfortunately, these reports have literally disappeared and are collecting dust as we have to deal with yet another report in the year 2000. If indeed the recommendations of this report, which is coming out at the end of this month, are not actioned as quickly as the 1992 one, I guess we will be here well into the next century before we get the recommendations implemented that certainly need to be implemented. These reports are indeed very important because they certainly should be actioned. It is costly enough to get them done, but it is more costly not to have the recommendations that are contained in them actioned.

Education in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly has changed and continues to change, but when we talk about reform it is quite obvious to many that the reform of the 1990s was simply reform regarding restructuring. The curriculum development that was promised in the early 1990s certainly did not materialize as we turn into the twenty-first century. Strong curriculum is necessary in order for true reform to take place. The curriculum is the heart of education because without a proper curriculum that caters to, or reflects the needs of, the students at this particular time, if it is not there, no matter what you do, no matter how you do it, the reform is not going to take place, the students who are going through the particular K-XII system will not be actioned.

Regarding curriculum development, I believe three years ago when my oldest daughter was entering high school - she is graduating now - we were told, as parents, that the new high school curriculum would be what she would go through. It was a reorganized high school. The Level Is coming in three years ago were told that they would graduate under those regulations. That was three years ago. To date, that reorganized curriculum for the most part remains on the shelf. My daughter will be graduating this year and she will be graduating under the old regulations. The names of the courses may be changed but the same courses remain.

Again, I say to this House that curriculum development is a key to ensuring that the students of this Province are receiving the instruction, the delivery of education, that is most important. The times have certainly changed. I, as an educator for something like twenty years, saw tremendous changes since I began teaching until last year as I took my seat in this House. The changes have not been addressed, especially with regard to curriculum development. It is vital that this government move quickly to make sure that the curriculum is a sound curriculum, a curriculum that truly reflects where we should be going at this particular time.

The math program, for example, was to be reorganized under that new high school program and three years later we have but one course up and running. It was interesting the other day to hear the Minister of Education talk about providing graphic calculators to the high schools. That is ten years too late. The high schools throughout this Province, over the last ten years, have been doing everything they can through fundraising, through scrimping, through savings, to try to get a graphic calculator for the instructor, the teacher, let alone for the class.

Just the other day a colleague of mine had to go out and purchase graphic calculators because the courses that are now being implemented - the minister had no choice, because the courses that are implemented in the math program require a graphic calculator.

This tells me, and should tell others, how education has changed; because ten years ago, fifteen years ago, it would be the textbook that we were talking about, but in this particular math program it is based around the graphic calculator. It is so important that we realize that there are no such thing as givens; that the government, Department of Education, have to be sure that they are getting into the schools and providing the tools - as the textbooks are tools, as the graphic calculators are tools and so on - that these tools are available.

The state of our schools is yet another need that certainly, certainly needs to be addressed. We have heard and I have seen situations around this Province where our schools have been allowed to deteriorate to a point that it is a wonder they can be brought back up to standard again. I talk about, in particular, the maintenance on our buildings, and not only the maintenance but the repair of emergencies such as leaky roofs.

I stood in Ascension Collegiate the other night and was told that building - and it is a great building, a great school - has been leaking since the beginning of the school year, into last summer, that the tiles are being damaged, and that the students of that school have to step around garbage buckets full of water when there is a rain storm. This is not acceptable, because we know that in our own homes -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: Leave denied.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: There is such vigor and excitement over there - goodness!

AN HON. MEMBER: All happy with the Budget.

MR. EFFORD: All happy with the Budget. They should be; it is a great Budget. It is the best Budget since Confederation.

Let's get back to the fishery because that is the good news, from where I sit, in Newfoundland and Labrador - the revitalization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery - but we have some concerns in the fishery. We have some challenges.

The hon. Member for Bonavista South made a couple of comments that I cannot argue with or disagree with, and one of them was the vessel size. I have said that here in this House of Assembly on many occasions. I have said it publicly on many occasions, and I am on record writing federal ministers; Minister Mifflin, Minister Anderson and the present minister. I have some good news about the vessel replacement program, because I met recently with the Coast Guards. All of us, collectively in this Province, are concerned about the safety. I have said to the federal minister in Ottawa, and I have said to the Coast Guard officials, my worst fears could come true any day in a freak storm, when we could get a call that there is one, two, three, four or five crews lost.

MR. FITZGERALD: It should be with the Coast Guard and not with DFO.

MR. EFFORD: Well it is, actually; that is what I am getting into.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: I'm getting into the issue here, because what we have done - the fishery has changed over the last seven or eight years. What was once considered a total inshore fishery, which is what the boats were built for, up to sixty-four feet, eleven inches, they were built for the inshore fishery, but with the changing fishery, and now particularly the shellfish industry, we have driven those boats, that were really inshore boats, off to where the large trawlers fished; all up through the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Those boats that were built and designed for the inshore are now off 250 miles to 350 miles on the Grand Banks, and that is a dangerous situation.

We have examples of forty-five, forty-eight foot boats fishing off Labrador last year in the shrimp fishery. They should not be engaged in the shrimp fishery in those types of boats, and in particular at that time of year; not any time of the year but in particular that time of the year.

As an example, one time last year a forty-five foot boat was dragging its shrimp

gear along the bottom, hooked into a rock, brought the boat right back down, and luckily there was another boat close by and saved the crew.

The Coast Guard now is involved from a safety and comfort issue - a safety issue. They have already had meetings here in St. John's, in fact, in the last two weeks. Minister Dhaliwal has committed to having his staff look into the vessel size from a safety and comfort issue alone, apart from a fishing issue.

The one thing we do not have to worry about now is, the fishery is not a competitive fishery any more. Pretty well all species of fishery are IQs, so if an individual fisherman has a fifty-foot boat or a sixty-foot boat, he has an IQ of crab, pretty well has his quota of cod, they know the number of pounds of shrimp they are going to catch in any given season within reason... In other words, it is not a competitive fishery. It cannot be a destructive fishery because they have a larger boat. So the size of the boat should be based on a fisherman's own ability to raise the necessary financing to build a boat that he deems necessary to bring in a quality product, so he can have safety and comfort -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: How come you never gave any money to the Liberal Party, all your money?

MR. EFFORD: For safety and comfort, Chairman. Can you imagine fourteen fishermen aboard a scallop boat, sixty-four feet, eleven inches, on the Grand Banks for twelve to fifteen days? It is not healthy. There is no comfort there and it is certainly not safe.

I have the confidence now that we have the attention of the Coast Guard officials, we have the attention of Fisheries and Oceans, and hopefully when the public consultation takes place it will be supported by the industry as a whole here in Newfoundland; because I have had some objections placed by fishermen themselves, for whatever reason I do not understand. When I made the comments: Well, we had better not allow bigger boats because if we allow bigger boats I may lose some of my quota.

Conservation signs, conservation principles, and people sticking to what is best for the industry in the long term can be dealt with without worrying about what size boat a fisherman has.

If we are going to expand our fishery and we are going to diversify the fishery into a means, giving people in the industry an opportune or advantage to earn a reasonable income, then we have to change the policy of the past. The policies have to suit the fishery of the day and the fishery of the future.

Now, I do not think for one second that changing that policy will mean that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian will have a sixty-five, seventy-five or eighty-five foot boat. I think what you will see in the small boat fishery is that they will get boats the size they need to conduct the fishery within their limits.

One of the arguments I had put before me last week when I said there should be no gill net fishery or, the next step, if there is going to be a gill net fishery, that the fishermen should bring back the gill nets the same day as they leave the harbour. They should bring back the fish and nets at the same time.

The fishermen made the argument that we cannot do that because our boats are only twenty-five feet, twenty-six feet, twenty-seven feet long. They are not big enough to bring back the nets and the fish the same day. I couldn't believe that argument could be made, so naturally I said: If your boats are not big enough, why don't you use a hook-and-line fishery.

I believe if the vessel replacement program was changed, those fishermen would have a boat the size they need to conduct a good, professional fishery, which means being able to bring in a quality product, to be able to carry the necessary tools to do what they can do out there in the fishing industry. In order for the fishing industry to be productive in the future, we have to change. We have to change our policies federally and provincially to meet the needs of the fishermen today, and we have to make sure that every time a policy is changed, regardless of what that policy is , it is based on the long-term interest of the fishery, and that they have a long-term vision and not a short-term vision.

The one thing that we will always apply is conservation. Conservation will be applied in every single instance. No more should we ever give into the pressures of individual industries, individual sectors of the fishery, and to apply the needs of fishermen against the needs of science. That is what caused the collapse of the fishery in the past and in no way, while I am Minister of Fisheries, will I ever support or give into the pressures of individual groups.

Yes, the small boat fishermen get angry with me. Yes, the larger boats get angry. That is because all they are viewing is what they need today. As minister, I have to make a decision on what is best for the interest in the industry for the long-term and not just what one small group or one individual wants to get out of the industry.

I think when you canvas all of the fishermen in the Province you will find very clearly that the greater majority of the fishermen do not ever want to go back to where we were pre-1992, or the suffering they had since 1992. They want to cooperate, and they want to make decisions and make policies, be proud of making policies, based on their best interest.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, last week at the Fisheries Forum 2000 here in St. John's it was clearly evident that all of the fishermen who participated in that conference spoke the same words: We want to play a role in developing a policy that is sound and good for the long-term in the fishery. We want to listen to the scientists. We want to cooperate with industry as a whole. We do not want to participate in an industry that is based on greed and selfishness. We want it based on good, sound policy and good, sound science. Well, anybody who attended that conference last week has to feel good.

People now realize that we made a lot of mistakes in the past. We do not want to make or repeat any of those mistakes in the future. All we want to do with the past is look to the past from a learning position, not be a critical position but a learning position. Learn what we did not do right, and ensure that the policies we develop in the future are the policies that are based on good, sound investment, deriving a good income and the maximum benefits for all of the people in the Province.

The one thing that I have been telling fishermen in this Province is: That resource does not belong to the fishermen. A fisherman has a privilege to hold a license and to be able to catch that species of fish. That resource belongs to the people, all people, of Newfoundland and Labrador. Wherever possible, all people in Newfoundland and Labrador should benefit from the fishing industry and have an input into the fishing industry of the future.

I will say it again: Any fisher person, any fisherman, who holds a license to catch a species of fish, it is a privilege to be able to do that. While those people who hold a license conduct a fishery in a professional manner, there are thousands of people outside who would like to have the opportunity to do it, but you cannot do that. You cannot expand the fishery to the numbers that we had pre-1992, because if you did that you would collapse it the same way as we collapsed it in the past.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

I give leave to the hon. Member for Bonavista South. He wants to respond.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can give leave. I don't need your leave for that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just stand to say a few more words on Interim Supply. I welcome the news that the minister has brought forward when it comes to vessel replacement. The minister is saying that he has heard some things from the industry that he might have some concern with as far as vessel replacement. I have heard nothing but common sense from the industry. The people now fishing less than the thirty-four feet, eleven inch boats in the inshore fishery are not out looking to buy and purchase sixty-five foot longliners. They are not going out and looking for fifty-five foot boats. They are looking to purchase a boat of a size where they can go out and exercise their activity with some degree of comfort and safety.

We must be the laughing stock of the nation; we have to be. When you go down to places like Bonavista, the Marine Centre, you go in there and look and see a fifty-five foot, eleven inch boat cut in two, chopped in the middle, taking two feet, three feet, four feet, or five feet out of that boat in order to allow people to go and fish. We have to be the laughing stock of the nation.

The minister talks about how he has gone and concurred with the former of Minister of Fisheries, and the former Minister of Fisheries, and this Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, because that is where the decision has to come from. There is no doubt about that. That is where the decision has to come from. I think we have to take some responsibility here in this House as well. I think it is about time that we started doing some things.

If we as legislators, and if we are sincere about what we are talking about here, maybe we should start introducing our own legislation when it comes to vessel size and when it comes to fishing activity. We should put our legislation out to the forefront and let it be examined by all Canadians. If the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wants to respond and say: No, you are not allowed to do it, no, we are not allowing you as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce legislation to make this industry more viable and have it carried out in a safer way, then maybe we can put them up on the pedestal and say: Look, how silly is this piece of legislation that you people have brought forward in order to inhibit our fishermen to be able to go out and fish with some degree of comfort and safety.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the size of the motor.

MR. FITZGERALD: You have been in Ottawa since 1989. I suggest you change it. You have had lots of time to change it. If we are going to go back and look at the past, maybe we can remember your former leader when he wanted to burn all the boats. Maybe we can go back and talk about that, I say to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Your idol, your mentor.

The minister talks about the quality of fish. That is very important. There is nobody here on this side who will deny or argue that if we are going to compete and if we are going to be there and stand the test of other provinces in the marketplace, then we are going to have to produce a good quality product. There is nobody arguing against that. Many things that have happened in the past have to be changed. We have gone too long and we have gone too far. It is time we looked back and realized what the market is demanding.

Look at where we have come from. We had a moratorium on the groundfishery in this Province in 1992. It made it unlawful for fishermen to go out and carry out an occupation, take part in an industry, that they normally took part in in order to support their families and earn a living. When you look at this particular industry starting to come back with a 10,000 ton cod allocation in 3PS, then it went to 20,000 tons, then it went to 30,000 tons. Just last year you look at a 30,000 ton allocation of cod in 3PS, 9,000 tons on the Northeast Coast, around the perimeter of our Province, that once had a quota in excess of 860,000 tons of cod fish that was allowed to get caught.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. FITZGERALD: In the perimeters off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, 860,000 tons back in the pre-moratorium days, I say to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. Now you see a quota this year of 39,000 tons, and you see 70 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that done?

MR. FITZGERALD: In the pre-moratorium days. I don't care who takes the blame, I wasn't a part of it. If you are going to start pointing fingers there are lots of people to point them at.

You see the fishery in this Province, Mr. Chairman, coming back now. The minister talks about quality and I will repeat for the minister what I said in his absence, that nobody will argue against that. If we are going to compete and going to go make this industry a viable industry to be there to support rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to be cognizant of it.

When you see - and I said it to the minister - 70 per cent of the cod that was caught and marketed last year in 3PS sent out of this Province in cod block, there is something wrong. There is somebody not doing what they are supposed to do. Just imagine, 70 per cent of a very limited fishery, 39,000 tons, was allowed to be sent out of this Province last year in the lowest form of a product, demanding the lowest price on the marketplace, packed in the quickest way, put into a pack that requires no quality whatsoever, cut up and put forward on the marketplace for a pittance, I say to the minister. We expect to solve the economy problems of our Province and our country on the fishery? Well, somebody has to give a new direction, somebody has to step in and look at what went wrong.

The minister talked about closing the fishery down at certain times. He did that last year. He closed the fishery down at a certain time which nobody had any problem with. Maybe what the minister should look at is closing it down for a certain time with gill nets and allow fishing to continue with hook and line, because there is no problem. In my conversation with fisherman there is no problem with fish being caught with hook and line in the time of the year that minister wanted the fishery closed down and left people idle on the shores of this Province. There is no need for it.

The minister got up and gloated about how many people are working in the industry now. I forget what figure he used because it was an figure that may have not been incorrect, but it was certainly not an accurate figure. What I want to say the minister is this. If he is going to compare the number of people working today in the fishery with what happened in 1992, I suggest he look at the number of days worked in this particular industry. There is a vast difference in the number of days worked in this industry, the number of hours worked in this industry today, and what it was back in 1992. The minister talks about the rejuvenation of all those people going to work.

It was only a few months ago the minister was on television talking about his great concern and his great fear that he was not going to be able to find enough people to work in this industry. He had a great fear. He was frightened to death that there were not going to be enough people to go to work in the fishing industry.

MR. EFFORD: When?

MR. FITZGERALD: Don't you be so silly! Mr. Chairman, there is a good reason, I say, and it is not for the reasons that the minister gave. The minister tried to make you believe that here we have an industry today that is employing so many people that everybody will be back to work and nobody will be without a job and we will have to beg people to come back.

MR. EFFORD: That is not going to (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That was what you portrayed, I say to the minister. He was going to have to go out beating the bushes looking for people to go to work. Mr. Chairman, the truth is he probably will have to be out looking for people to go to work, but the reason he will be out looking for them is because he will have them all driven out of this Province and up in Alberta and British Columbia and those places.

The other truth of it is that when he sat on that same side of the House when he had a chance to allow people to retire with a little bit of dignity by lowering the retirement age to a level to where people could have retired with some dignity and allow younger people to take part in the industry - it would have cost him thirty cents on every dollar that he put forward - he turned his back on it and walked away and would not take part in it.

Those are the reasons that you are going to find if there is a problem with getting people to go to work. It is not going to be a situation where there will not be enough people to go to work because there are so many opportunities in the industry. There will be a problem because he will have driven so many people out of this Province that there may not be as many young people here to work.

CHAIR (Walsh) : Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have never in my fifteen years in this House heard such a distortion of the facts as what that hon. member just stood in his place in the House and said. I have heard some debates in this House in fifteen years, but I have never heard such a distortion of the facts as he just presented to this House.

Let me correct the hon. member on exactly what I said. First of all, I said rural Newfoundland and Labrador has a declining population in many communities. If you looked at the average age of the people working in fish plants today and the fact that the young people are leaving the rural communities, where will we get the workers in the fish plants in the next decade? There is going to be a real problem in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because our young people are not staying here. If the average age of fish plant workers today is in excess of forty years of age, in another ten or fifteen years down the road who is going to work in the fish plants?

I did not say that we have a shortage of fish plant workers in the Province today. I never ever said that, and the hon. member know full well I did not say that. So for any member to get up in this House today and say what he just said, is a misrepresentation of the facts. He should stand and apologize, and correct what he just said. It is wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, there will be a problem. Yes, that's a fact. They had to come from my district to work up in the hon. member's district because there were not enough workers to go into the plants.

You take a place like the Northern Peninsula where the young people are not staying in the communities. What is going to happen ten or fifteen years down the road when the present employees come up to retirement age? There is not going to be enough there, and we had better start planning for the future.

First of all, what we have to do is look at every opportunity in that ocean. There is more in that ocean than crab, there is more in that ocean than shrimp and there is certainly more than the traditional species we have caught. We have to have a vision in that ocean and look at the value of that resource, the value of all of those species, of all of those resources, and we have to develop the markets to sell those species; but the first thing we have to do is get fishermen to invest their time into researching underutilized species.

The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, as a true example, can attest to what is happening in the underutilized species in a little fish plant on Bell Island; the best kept secret in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-five.

MR. EFFORD: Sixty-five people having full-time employment working with underutilized species; sea urchins. Sixty-five people working in underutilized species, pretty well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since October

MR. EFFORD: Since October, and most of them will probably have full-time employment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-odd.

MR. EFFORD: Forty-odd people will have full-time employment in that plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: In excess of forty people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: That's a little bit of a Port de Grave twang, and I am sure the hon. member has a few twangs like that on the Southern Shore. Now I have lost my train of thought.

In all seriousness, using Bell Island for an example, there is no reason why we couldn't have several more of those around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, keeping in mind what is happening on Bell Island, and has been happening since October, when 90 per cent of all other fish plants have shut down in the winter months.

What we are saying here is, very clearly, we have to have a respect for that ocean. We have to create and give the young people and the industry a different respect for that ocean out there. We have to get away from saying: Well, we are used to doing this and that is what we must do for the rest of our lives. Not so. All you have to do is visit a country like Japan, where the consumption of seafood per capita is about 85 per cent. Four hundred and fifty different species of marine life are consumed by the people in Japan. Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, the maximum number of species is forty-five, 10 per cent of what the population of Japan people consume; 450 different species of marine life. Now am I saying we have 450 different species here in this Province? I am not saying that. I don't know, maybe we do, but we certainly have a lot more than forty-five.

One shellfish alone over in Spain, that the divers dive for, brings in $40 a pound for one particular shellfish. Another example I will use, I remember back in the 1960s when crab was a nuisance fish. When fishermen hauled their traps and hauled their nets, they cursed on crab, jumped on them and stamped them up, and now today it is a $400 million industry.

Let me tell you about another one I saw in Japan, sculpins. Sculpins today in Newfoundland and Labrador are a nuisance fish. They discard every single one. When I visited the Japanese seafood market last year, in one of the boxes there were sculpins swimming around. I asked the question: What do you do with that? We sell them. How much does it sell for? Forty dollars, Canadian, a pound. The meat in the tail of a sculpin is similar to the same texture as lobster meat. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have been here 500 years, and we still don't know that. There is a prime example. For five hundred and two years we have been on this land and we don't know the value of a sculpin. How many thousand tonnes of scuplin have we discarded over the last 500 years? Not only Japan, that is only one marketplace.

What I am trying to do is emphasize the value of all resources in that ocean. Another one is seaweed. The Country of China imports $1 billion a year. Nova Scotia harvests and produces $25 million worth of seaweed annually. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have not reached $1 million. Do we have seaweed in our ocean? Do we have kelp on the rocks? Yes, but we do not have the vision and the interest of taking it out and using it as a valuable resource.

So, we have to change our attitudes, we have to change our thinking, and we have to have a respect for that ocean that we do not carry today. That is imperative in educating our youth.

Let me take it to my concluding remarks. Go into the school system, into elementary, into high schools and post-secondary education. What is taught about the marine life? The only thing I learned about the fishery when I went to school was John Cabot coming across the Atlantic Ocean, dropping a basket down and bringing up fish. There is nothing else taught about the fishery in our elementary and high schools.

I talked to Dr. George Rose just recently, at Memorial University. He is trying to encourage the people and the administrators of Memorial University to bring in some courses on the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, the opportunities, to have a vision, to have an understanding about the fishery. It is not there.

Mr. Chairman, we have to take responsibility, not just the people in the fishing industry, the whole of society, for not having respect for that ocean that they have in other parts of the world. The fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is the backbone of the economy, has been, is today, and will be in the future, and the better respect we have for it, the better it will improve the economy in this Province and improve job opportunities for the people in this Province.

To say what the hon. member did not say in his remarks, I would love to see every fish plant filled to capacity in this Province, and I would love to be in the position of saying that we do not have enough workers, because that means that the industry would be vibrant, the industry would be alive, and the industry would be adding to the economy and to the needs of the people in this Province who need jobs out there. Instead of being negative all the time, let's be positive and let's look at the good parts of the industry and the value of what that ocean can bring to us.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) get rid of that cartel.

MR. FITZGERALD: The cartel is in full control now.

I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the minister looked after the cartel in a very positive way.

Mr. Chairman, I will stand again to say a few words.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: The hon. Member for Bonavista South starts off again with a misrepresentation of the facts about the fishing industry. There is no way a cartel can be vibrant in the Province today, because the final office election process prevents any existence of any cartel or any other organization that could be to the detriment of the fishing industry.

If you don't understand that, you don't know anything about the fishing industry.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister is right. While we have a good system in place, I say to the minster, as far as fixing price today, unfortunately, with the system that is in place, we would normally be getting geared up now and everybody would be excited about going back to work on April 1. I think the minister stated in Forum 2000 that the fishery was going to start April 1 anyway, whether there was a quota set for snow crab or not. My information tells me that a lot of fishermen are not going to start fishing on April 1, because a lot of fishermen are saying that until we know what we are allowed to catch, we are not going fishing. That is the fear that is out there now.

I say to the minister, and this always comes up, and it is something that has been no secret, my feelings on what the minister has done with the crab fishery. When the minister started handing out crab licences, I think we had twenty-two licences in the Province, prior to the minister becoming -

MR. EFFORD: Seventeen.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, there were seventeen active licences, I say to the minister, but there were twenty-two licences were issued.

MR. EFFORD: Seventeen.

MR. FITZGERALD: There was seventeen active licences, twenty-two licences, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

Then the minister all of a sudden decided that he was going to go and spread the work around. He talked about how we had to get away from trucking, that we were getting a poor quality and trucking was the problem; that people should be able to land their product and process it in certain areas, and we should not have a congestion of crab plants like we had in fish plants. He talked about how there were 245 processing plants, groundfish plants, in the Province, and now he has it down to something like 135. He will never allow that to happen again. It was too much, and everybody will agree with that. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again, I say to the minister. What did he do then? He turned around and doubled the number of crab processors that were in the Province, and he said it was all because of location.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: It was important to have crab licences in certain locations in order to provide a good quality product.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the simple fact was: when there were seventeen licences out there, the crab quota was less than 30,000 tonnes. Today, the crab quota is 66,000 tonnes and there are thirty licenses processing crab around this Province. Get your facts straight.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, if the minister had the patience to sit in his seat, I would have gotten to all of that because I am not finished yet. I still have nine and one-half minutes to get to that, Minister.

The minister talked about how this was wrong and it should never be allowed to happen again. Then he went out and doubled the number of processing plants for snow crab in the Province. Now he stands and talks about how, at that particular time, there was only a 33,000 tonne allocation and today there are 69,000 metric tonnes of snow crab caught in this Province.

What the minister is not telling you is that those same crab plants only operated for twelve or fourteen weeks of the year. The season didn't start until June and sometimes July. Now we have a fishery - we had the infrastructure in place, we had the trained workers - where the plants can go and they can open on April 1, and they can fish right up and stay open until November or December. There is nothing wrong with that.

But the minister, in his wisdom, decided he was going to go and have plants strategically located across the Province. What did he do?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Stay tuned, I say to the minister. What did he do? He went down on the Southern Shore and he handed out four crab processing licences -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four Liberals.

MR. FITZGERALD: Four Liberals probably, I don't know, but he handed out four crab licences in an area that you can walk to in twenty minutes, and those plants are strategically located. The minister says: Oh, you don't have to worry about those fellows because they are only processing 5,000 pounds, or they are only processing a million pounds or two million pounds. This is the argument that the minister puts forward.

The reason they are only processing three million and four million pounds of crab, Mr. Chairman, is because they are new entrants into the market. They can go out and compete, and they can buy whatever is out there if they want. They have the processing capacities. If they wanted to do it, they can do it. The minister is saying that now the plants are strategically located.

All the minister did - this is the minister's history in this fishery - was transfer the licence, transfer the jobs, transfer the work hours, and transfer the workers. That is all he did.

The people in Bonavista right now, the people in the other plants that took part in this industry, are struggling now in order to get the minimum number of work weeks in order to get their fourteen weeks, in order to get the minimum number of weeks.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: The people are struggling. In some cases, in most cases, they are not even qualifying for EI.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that the hon. member either is intentionally misleading the House or he is so stunned he doesn't know what is going on. The average number of weeks of work in crab plants last year in Newfoundland and Labrador was seventeen. He just said a few minutes ago, when there were seventeen plants around, the average weeks of work was twelve weeks to fourteen weeks. In 1999 the average number of weeks was seventeen in the crab plants. The other thing is that we have to produce more than crab, it has to be multi-species, and we should be getting twenty-five to thirty-five weeks not twelve to fourteen weeks like the hon. member is promoting.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is the one who is promoting the twelve or fourteen weeks by having over-processing in the industry. You are not that stunned, are you, boy? Smarten up!

Here is the minister talking about the number of work weeks prior to 1989; he is talking about the number of work weeks today. I'm telling you that the Bonavista crab plant is probably one of the oldest processing crab plants on the Island. Today those people are struggling to get fourteen weeks a year. In fact, I can tell you there is a lot more people down there who probably had to struggle to get fourteen weeks than the number of people who got seventeen weeks.

Before I sit down, because there are other people who want to speak - unlike the other side. This is not a one-man show. This is a party show here where everybody stands up and represents their districts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister: Did you see the cartoon in today's paper?

I say to the minister that only a couple of months ago the federal minister came here, and he and the provincial minister had a love-in where they signed this big Memorandum of Understanding that they were going to work together. Just imagine! The minister and his cousin had to sign an agreement that they were going to cooperate and work together. Is this what you mean by having the federal and the provincial party being of the same stripe? If it is, I would hate to see what would happen - there would be war if it was the other way around.

The federal minister had to come to Newfoundland and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the provincial Minister of Fisheries that they cooperate and work together. That was the first thing. Then what did he do? On the same trip, he came and said: We are going to file an appeal against the Supreme Court of Newfoundland where you people decided you were allowed to sell blueback seals because we don't feel that is right. In order for you to get a seal licence this year, that is going to be attached to your seal licence, where you are not allowed to hunt blueback seals.

The minister, the great supporter of the seal hunt, went into hiding. Nobody saw him, nobody heard from him. The media had a job to flush him out to make a comment because he didn't want to go against the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That Minister of Fisheries was lost for almost two weeks before he made a comment. The Fisheries Broadcast was after him, CBC was after him, VOCM was after him, even The Packet was trying to track him down. The Packet was after him, The Compass was after him, The Humber Log was after him, but he could not come out against his buddy.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: He couldn't come out against the same minister that he has signed the Memorandum of Understanding for.

CHAIR: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: This great industry that means so much to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, well, I say to the minister, where were you?

CHAIR: No leave.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the last time I saw a performance like this was on the Jack Benny Show. Seriously, the last time I saw anybody put on such a show was Jack Benny. To say that this member avoids the cameras or avoids the news media? My goodness. He just said that I avoid the cameras and the news media.

MR. FITZGERALD: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am going to retract that statement that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture avoided the cameras. Because it was only a couple of months ago when I saw the federal minister, George Baker, go out to Woodman's Sea Products. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was there, the Premier was there, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs had the floor. He stole the show and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was there like a little boy trying to get his face in the camera, looking around, looking up over his shoulder, and nobody even mentioned he was part of the show.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: At least I was there, Mr. Chairman, and you saw it. So if you saw it other people saw it, so I did not fail. Again, I was there. You must have seen it on the news. My constituents saw it. What is it Steve Neary used to say? There is no such thing as bad publicity for a politician as long as you are there. I only hope that the hon. member is around as long as I have been and he has as many scrap books filled out as I have filled out, because he will be able to say he had a successful year in his life with the news media right across this world. If he would like to come out to my anniversary on April 1, I will show him what publicity is all about.

I want to tell you, sir, (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: April 1?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, April 1. I am going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, there will be a jam-packed hall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is a little confused, but we will accept a point of order from the government's side.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The truth is that the hon. gentlemen is celebrating his fifteenth year. He is doing that as well, but he should tell the truth to this House, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The truth of the matter is that he should also celebrate something else: being one of two or three people who are primarily responsible for seeing that we have good government in this Province. Because the truth of the matter is that he was one of the chief architects of taking that crowd from over here and putting them over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: It is one of the rare times when the Chair will accept that point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. TULK: John, was that right or wrong?

MR. EFFORD: That is absolutely right, sir.

MR. TULK: They are even at the place now where they are going to Hansard and reading what we used to do.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, even trying to copy, but I can tell you one thing, they have a long ways to go before they can match what we used to do. They have to go to a lot of schools before they get (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, John, tell us more about your birthday party.

MR. EFFORD: Birthday? My fifteenth anniversary in politics, celebrated with a jam-packed hall. I have a waiting list of people trying to get in there. The only thing I can tell you is that there will be no Tories there. That is the one thing I can assure you. There will be no Tories.

Mr. Chairman, it is back to the fishing industry because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Not a chance will there be that a Tory get through that door. We screen them as they go through just to double-check.

AN HON. MEMBER: Actually, when they go through a beeper goes off.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, a beeper goes off. Mr. Chairman, we do not need that to detect Tories.

The one thing that we have to get serious about is the fishing industry in this Province. We sent out a newsletter just recently on the value of the fishing industry -

MR. TULK: Is your picture on that one?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, most definitely, look. It was on the value of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. For the hon. member to get on saying what we did to expand the crab processing sector in this Province was wrong, then I have to ask the member who represents the community of Triton: Was it wrong to have a crab processing plant in Triton? Absolutely not. Was it wrong to have a couple more up on the Southern Shore? No, it was not. What was wrong was to have the crab industry controlled by seven companies in Newfoundland and Labrador. If I had to continue on with that policy, today we would have an industry that is worth $420 million controlled by seven companies. That is not only wrong in principle, that is wrong for the people out there around Newfoundland and Labrador who own that resource, not just seven companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we going to get the water line?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, you are going to get the water line.

MR. TULK: Now John, don't go telling him that yet. We are not ready to tell him yet.

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish. You never let me finish. You are going to get the water line up there when they decide to vote in the right way, sir. When they vote in the right way then they will get the water line.

MR. TULK: No, we might give them that one.

MR. EFFORD: We might? No.

MR. TULK: I think we might give you that one. You are harmless anyway, you only have one term.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I have said it a thousand times.

MR. TULK: John, I think we will give him that one, because regardless of what you give him he only has one term.

MR. EFFORD: Maybe. He might not have one term.

MR. TULK: He has a term, yes.

MR. EFFORD: Seriously, Mr. Chairman, the fishing industry has changed in this Province and it is not going to come back the way it was. As I said in my opening remarks today, the fishing resource belongs to everybody in this Province, not one sector, not one group. It belongs to every man, woman and child in this Province and it should benefit all of the people in this Province. As I said earlier, it is a privilege for a community to have a processing licence, and it is a privilege for fishermen to hold a licence; because, while a community has a licence to process a particular species, there are dozens and dozens of other communities out there who would like to have that. So to create jobs in a community, to create opportunities for fishermen to go out there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Tell him no, Beaton.

MR. TULK: No, he said.

MR. EFFORD: Whatever the question is, it is simply no.

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) the question is: Are you going to get re-elected?

MR. EFFORD: No, I am not going to get re-elected. No, I have a real problem getting re-elected. The hon. member should have it so easy getting re-elected. All the hon. member has to do is go back to 1985. In 1985 the majority, beating the incumbent, then PC, just opened the Bay Arena, was a mere 900 votes. In 1989 it was a mere 2,800 votes. In 1993 it was 3,500 votes. In 1996 it was 3,400 votes. Keep on going and the votes keep on increasing. In three out of the five elections, I had the largest majority in the whole of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you think I am going to get re-elected? I think so, without any great difficulty; because, Mr. Chairman, I look after my constituents. My constituents are flourishing out there in the great District of Port de Grave.

MS S. OSBORNE: What was your percentage, John?

MR. EFFORD: I don't look percentage; I look at numbers. Numbers are what counts. Thirty-five hundred is better than 3,200 and better than 190, and some with 120, and some with ninety-five. A lot better, wouldn't you think? I think so.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand, the fishing industry. The fishing industry is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over 4,000?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, he did. Mommy's boy got over 4,000? Mommy is dreaming in technicolour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them who got the most.

MR. EFFORD: Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabour and talk any more about the fishing industry today because if I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over 3,500.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, but he had only fellow running against him.

MS S. OSBORNE: He had five running against him and got 71 per cent.

MR. EFFORD: Are we into pre-election? Have we gone back to 1999, to the election date?

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand, the fishing industry. The hon. Member for Bonavista South has done everything in the little bit of knowledge he has about the fishing industry today to try to talk negatively, but if he stood on his feet for the next twenty-four hours, you cannot find anything negative about the fishing industry today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. TULK: He is worse than Jim Morgan.

MR. EFFORD: I think he is trying to copy Jim Morgan. He is trying to copy him. Jim is his idol, that is what it is.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am a better dresser.

MR. EFFORD: I will let you be the judge of that; I wouldn't.

MR. FITZGERALD: John, my clothes is in the 1990s.

MR. EFFORD: I am going to adjourn. I have nothing else to say, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I will just add a few more words.

I say to the minister, I am not being negative about the fishery. What I am doing is pointing out and correcting what the minister is putting forward, because the spin the minister puts on the information that he brings forward on the fishery, people would think there are no more problems out there; you have an industry worth $1 billion. It was never of that value in export value before. Everybody is working, everything is ripe and rosy; but, I say to the minister, that is not what is happening. You talk to the Member for Terra Nova there, and I look and see other rural members here as well. Talk to them about what is happening out in their districts.

While the fishery is important - and I talk positively about the fishery and I talk positively about the things that are happening within the fishery that make sense - I cannot stop talking about the shortcomings of an industry that means so much to this people. When I see the federal government being so out of touch and so far removed from what needs to be said and what needs to be done here in this Province, then somebody has to say something about it.

I don't think the minister, as many times as he was on his feet here today, talked about the federal government cutting back on funding for science. There is not enough science being done. I say to the minister as he leaves, the people who closed the fishery the other day down in Placentia were not the scientists, were not the people who were supposed to have had the knowledge about this industry. If anybody had listened to the fishermen, and had listened to the Fisheries Broadcast -

AN HON. MEMBER: Open Line (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, the Fisheries Broadcast and Open Line shows too, probably.

Speaking of Open Line, sometimes the members opposite pump out a few cranks about Open Line and this fellow calls in and they have a big laugh. I say to the minister, it was only the other day that I heard the Premier and Tom Hanlon doing negotiating on Open Line. It was the first time I had ever seen it done. The Premier and Tom Hanlon negotiated a settlement to the social workers strike on Open Line. Unbelievable!

I was driving down from moose hunting back in November, and I didn't make it home to the laying of the wreath at the War Memorial, and I heard the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal call into Open Line and say: Good morning, Bill. I just wanted to let you know that I am on my way now to lay a wreath at such a memorial, and my wife is laying a wreath at such a place. I wanted to let you know because it is important that people know that the minister is going out and laying a wreath to show respect.

The minister calls the Open Line show. There is nothing wrong with that. I call in. In fact, stay tuned; you may hear me on tonight talking about something.

MR. TULK: The only difference is that we make sense and, Roger, you don't.

MR. FITZGERALD: We talk about the issues, I say to the minister, and talk about how they concern people out there. There is nothing wrong with that. You use whatever forum you can to get the point across.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, in his absence, there are many things that still need to be done in the fishery. The minister gets up and he walks across this Province on his soap box and talks about all the new fisheries, and how there are 450 different species of fish being bought, sold and demanded in Japan, and we catch and process something like forty-five here in this Province. That is all very well and good, but something has to be done to provide some guidance, some direction, in order for the fishermen out there today to take part in those new industries.

Fishermen today do not have the dollars behind them where they can go and set up harvesting plants, processing plants, and be without taking an income from a business for probably three or four years. Something has to be done to help them to take them through. If all those species are there and it is a viable operation - as the minister puts forward - then let's do it. Let's do it, because it is something that can happen in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The shame of the fishery today is that it is controlled from Ottawa. The shame of the fishery today is that the decisions that are passed down from Ottawa are not decisions that effect positively on this industry as it relates to the people who take part. I am talking about the fishermen in particular. When you see the cutback in science, here we are today, eight years after a moratorium, and we know no more about what happened to the northeast cod stocks than we did back in 1992.

Mr. Chairman, two weeks before the crab fishery, a fishery that generates in excess of $450 million in export value to this Province, is about to open, all of a sudden we hear scientific information coming forward that was done in a survey that was carried out last November by a boat going out and hauling a trawl behind it in order to do a survey of what the biomass of crab was. This survey was conducted back in November, 1999. Does it take that long for scientists and scientific information to be realized from a fishery that took place in November to be passed on to the fishermen and the people in this industry.

My good Lord, we are living in the day of high technology. Why can't we transfer the information and have people be able to gear up and take part in the fishery, processors and fishermen, knowing full well what quota they are allowed to catch and what the scientific information puts forward?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: If the minister is saying I do not know about scientific information, he is 100 per cent right because he does not know either. In fact, none of us know because scientific information on the fishery here today is next to nothing. It is only the other day I heard somebody say that there was $25,000 spent on shellfish science in 1999. Now, that is disgraceful.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. FITZGERALD: Listen to what I said, I say to the minister. I said it was only the other day that I had heard that there was $25,000 spent in shellfish science in this Province in 1999. That is disgraceful. I brought it up to a scientist down at the Fisheries Forum 2000 and he said: Yes, you are partly right. The people who took part in this panel are partly right. The only thing that they did not figure in there was the cost of gas, and the cost of renting a boat, and that kind of thing. I do not know what those costs were, but we are certainly lacking in good scientific information. We are certainly lacking there and it is cut to the bone.

We have a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who remains silent on the issues. Mr. Dhaliwal has taken him in and they collared him and put the collar lock on him. He said: John, fall in line. I have to revert back to the blueback seal situation again. While the minister probably did not avoid cameras, I will tell you that he was in no hurry to say that he disagreed with the federal minister in appealing this decision, Mr. Chairman.

I will tell you the reason why the decision was appealed. It was appealed because they were scared that if they were going to accept the decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court they would probably end up paying the fishers, the seal hunters on the Northeast Coast, thousands of dollars for seal pelts that they had to discard because their federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said: I am sorry, you are not allowed to sell them.

The minister talks about creating new opportunities, creating new enterprises, going out and taking part in underutilized species in this Province today. I guess it is a good speech. It is good information, and it sounds good, but what we have to do is we have to look at what we already have first. We have to go find a market for our seals. The minister talks about a cull, doing away with six million seals. Nobody will argue in this House that something needs to be done with the seal population, but we may as well face the facts. It is not in the cards to go out and do away with 2 million, 3 million or 4 million seals. It is not going to happen. As much as we would like to do it, and as much as everybody over here would be the first to purchase a seal licence, it is not going to happen.

What the minister should be doing is he should be concentrating and concerting his effort into trying to go out and to find markets for seal meat, to find markets for seal blubber -

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - to find markets for seal oil, and look after this particular industry before we start moving on and taking part in something that we know nothing about, that the minister knows nothing about.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, there is no more marketing being done and getting seal products into other countries. We have not moved any further than we were six years ago, I say to the minister.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave.

MR. EFFORD: No leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: I will move off the fishery and get into health care.

CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am going to say a few words on the Interim Supply bill that we are supposed to be talking about, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows nothing about. I know that the Member for Bonavista South wants a few more words to say that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture refused him leave to say, so I am going to sit down and give him my time if he wants to get up again, I say to the Member for Bonavista South.

Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Somebody can get up on this side.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I know, but that is it. You aren't getting up, are you?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, if somebody wants to get up they can certainly get up after.

I am going to move away from the fishery. I am going to talk about a couple of other issues that affect my district. I am going to talk about health care, and I am going to go back and relive again the policies of this government as they relate to opening beds in senior citizens' homes. I am referring to the ten beds existing at the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista.

When I was in the midst of talking about the need to have some of those beds open and the concern was there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, they are not open. There was $1.4 million spent on refurbishing the old Golden Heights Manor and in doing that there was ten extra beds created. The furniture was put in the beds and the doors were closed. They are ready to be occupied. The need has been demonstrated, but probably not on a continual basis. There is not always ten or twelve people on the waiting list. In fact, sometimes the waiting list is very short.

What I say to the Minister of Treasury Board is it is very difficult to talk to a constituent who calls in that has their mom, dad, grandmother, grandfather or whoever assessed to be a patient for that particular home and to find out that they cannot go there because all the beds are full and the ten beds are not open because the waiting list is not long enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There are seventy and there are sixty open.

Mr. Chairman, that is frustrating. The union members have come to me and said: Look, we recognize the need here, we recognize that something has to be done. I will tell you what we are going to do. What we are going to do is that we will come - and the minister's argument was that we cannot hire extra people in order to fill those beds because we do not have the money.

The union members have come and the union members have said to me: Look, we don't want those beds kept open if there is no need for them. We do not want ten beds open if there is only a need for one bed, but if there is a need for one bed, then why do we need to have fourteen people on a waiting list before we open a bed? The union members have come to me and have said: We are willing to do the little bit extra. We are willing to extend our workload. We are willing to look after those extra beds. We are willing to look after the people that need to be admitted into this home without any extra cost, without any grievances, just because we know there is a need there and we are willing to do our share to respond to it.

The beds are still not open, the waiting list is still there, and I find it very difficult to deal with when somebody calls on the phone that would like to have somebody placed in this particular home. A home that is second to none in this Province, I say to members opposite.

After the Budget yesterday we talk about the things that weren't there and we talk about the things we would like to see there. I have to admit that there was something there that meant a lot to me. There was something there that I have been saying should have been done for a number of years. I have had meetings with the minister, I have had meetings with the Minister of Finance, and I have had meetings with the administrator out in the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation. I had meetings with people that were concerned. The thing that meant a lot to me was the establishment of two dialysis machines for the dialysis treatment center for Clarenville.

I never got into a situation where you come out and say it should be here or it should be there. Each time I stood in this House and talked about the need for a dialysis unit I always talked about the need for it to be put in an area that was controlled by the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation, and you put it in a place that would serve the most number of people. Clarenville is the logical choice for it. It serves part of the District of Bellevue, it will serve all of the District of Trinity North and all of the District of Bonavista South. In fact, I would say it would serve all the District of Terra Nova, because I can't see anybody from Glovertown driving to Grand Falls when they can come to Clarenville.

The reason why it meant so much to me is because sometimes in this job, in this occupation, in this profession, you get a call, and some of the calls you can hang up and forget about. There was a call that was made and it was the one that you got yesterday and the day before, and there is nothing you can do about. It does not touch you. There are other calls you get that stick with you. There are other calls you get, I say to members opposite, and you don't lay down the phone and forget about them. You take them home with you at night time. They are on your mind when you wake up.

When I saw an individual and his wife drive - I didn't care which district he was from, it didn't matter, he happened to be from my district - in here to see me one day and talk about his need to be able to access kidney dialysis a little closer to where he lived, because he is after spending four and one-half years getting into his pickup truck Monday morning, loading his clothes into the truck, taking his food for the week, taking his wife with him because he cannot lift the bag that his clothes is in, coming into the hostel in St. John's for four and one-half years, in that room, in the hostel in St. John's, in order to receive kidney dialysis; get aboard of his pickup truck and go home every Friday evening, he has to take everything in his room with him because if he leaves it there he has to pay for the room on the weekend, those kinds of stories have to touch you.

When you get a call six months after, from a senior citizen living in Melrose, who had to bar up his house at seventy-two years old, move to St. Johns, him and his wife, buy second-hand furniture and rent an apartment in order to access kidney dialysis, those are stories that you do not forget very easily, Mr. Chairman.

I can go on with other stories; they are numerous out there. I can name at least five people who are seniors, who have come here into this town in order to access kidney dialysis. They have donated their whole life to being able to survive.

Mr. Chairman, I go back to this other one individual, because his story is the one that touched me. He was a contractor, made some money, had some savings, tried to put his daughter through university. He spent every cent he had. That individual now is on social services, had to take very dollar he had in order to be able to come in here and access kidney dialysis.

If it was in Clarenville, he could get up in the morning - while it would certainly be an inconvenience, while it would certainly probably control his life to the extent that it has today, in that he would not be able to do a lot of other things - he could get aboard of his car or his truck, he could go to Clarenville, get on the dialysis machine, and go back home that same night and be able to live in his home. Maybe the next day that he wasn't on it he would be able to go out and do a little bit of trouting, or go in the woods and have a boil up or something, something that would take his problem off his mind and allow him to survive.

This same individual, in here on social services, he has had a colostomy done, he has had five by-passes done, he is on a diet where he is not allowed to eat certain food, and the Department of Social Services have been saying to him: If you are going to eat in here, and if we are going to pay for it, then here are your meal tickets and you eat at the cafeteria. He has gone back to social services many times and he has put the plea in and said: Look, I am not looking for any luxury. I am not asking that I go out every night and have a steak, or I go out and enjoy Chinese food. He is saying: Would you be kind enough to allow me not to take the meal tickets but give me that amount of money so that I can go out and spend it, buy some fresh fruit, and buy the meal that I am allowed to eat with my medical condition.

Cannot do it, it hasn't been done, won't do it. I ask the members opposite: Is this fair? This is a real story. I am not elaborating. In fact, there are a lot of things I am not telling you, Mr. Chairman. Those kinds of things touch your heart.

When I saw the announcement in the Budget yesterday, I was the first one to go over and get clarification from the minister because he talked about a community-based dialysis unit. I did not know what community based meant.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it?

MR. FITZGERALD: A community- based dialysis unit means that it can be placed outside of the hospital. It does not have to be within the hospital environment, but in Clarenville it is going in the hospital. That was his answer to me. I think the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal was there when he explained it to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hospital, don't they?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, they do, in St. Anthony as well. Community-based means that they don't have to be put within the hospital structure. It can be done outside. It is a full-fledged renal dialysis unit. There are two units going there. I think their capabilities will be able to do six or seven cases a day.

MR. SULLIVAN: With two units?

MR. FITZGERALD: With two units.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure what shift, but you normally run about three and one-half hours (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: About six a day with the two units, and I think that meets the need because those people are not on dialysis every day. The fellow I am referring to is on it three times a week. You have other people, then, who can come and access this unit.

My understanding, as well -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. TULK: The only bit of entertainment I've seen here today.

MR. FITZGERALD: This is not entertainment; this is information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I am not saying it is (inaudible). You can give information and be entertaining at the same time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: If they feel entertained, Roger, so be it.

MR. FITZGERALD: So be it. It is not my intent to entertain; it is my intent to put forward information.

I say to the members opposite that I was the first person to go over to the Minister of Health yesterday and say: Thank you very much.

I took him, and I got another card -

MR. TULK: My wife tells me there is a scattered decent bone in your body; she is not sure how many, but there is a scattered one.

MR. FITZGERALD: Your wife would know, because she is a very decent person herself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I went yesterday and got a couple of tickets, because I knew what it meant to those two individuals. I called them up and said: I would like to share something with you. I don't want to sound too positive because I am not so sure what is going to be in the Budget.

I said to the minister: Can I have those two constituents come and sit in the gallery, because I would like for them to hear it? He said: By all means, tell them to come and tell them to see me after.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

They came and sat in the gallery. You could see the beam in their eyes and the smile on their faces, and they came and said: We want to thank the minister, and we want to thank the health critic as well, because they knew he had brought it up many times.

While there were a lot of things in the Budget that we are not happy with, that we are dissatisfied with, that was one thing that I have to compliment the government for, and I have to compliment the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, and whoever shepherded that piece of information through to get into the Budget. It was something that needed to be done. The answer is there, and I understand from the minister that the letter was written yesterday morning to the Administrator of the Peninsula Health Care Board saying: Go ahead and order the equipment. The money is there this fiscal year to buy the equipment. It can be spent prior to March 31, but come April 1 you will also have the money to go out and do the renovations that are needed. We are probably looking at two or three months down the road when this particular unit is going to show up.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Has the hon. member concluded his remarks?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it was just a point of clarification, I say to the Chairman, for something that had to be responded to.

I was disappointed in the amount of money that was put forward for roads. I know that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has the desire, as we do over here, to see money brought forward for road work, and see the need that is out there and the need that he would like to attend to. He has driven over the roads. He has been out with me and look at the needs in my district. I fear that here again this year we are going to see many people not only disappointed but many people inconvenienced, putting up protest lines, putting up picket lines, having to send petitions into this House of Assembly in order to get road work done.

The minister, I think, got about the same amount of money that he had last year, if I read the Budget right. His problem is going to be that he is not going to be able to provide even the amount of pavement that was done last year because the price of his liquid asphalt has gone through the roof.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be making excuses for him.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it is true. Last year I think the minister probably got the best price in asphalt that the Province has seen in the last twenty years, and it allowed us to go out and do some extra work.

When you talk to people like my colleague from Baie Verte-White Bay, when he speaks he will talk about the roads down in his district, how they have never seen pavement, and how it is not too much to ask for.

MR. TULK: Who is getting up over there next?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know.

Mr. Chairman, when you see people like the people down in Winter Brook and in Jamestown who have never seen an inch of pavement... Their road was upgraded years ago, and they were promised before - because this minister would never promise them something and not deliver, I am convinced of that. Your present minister would never promise something and not deliver. I am convinced of that.

MR. TULK: You are absolutely right about that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure I am absolutely right.

Other members who sat on that side of the House went down and upgraded the road through Jamestown and Winter Brook and promised: We can't do upgrading and paving in the same year. We are going to upgrade your road this year and we are going to pave it for you next year.

Some of the finest people in the world, not only in the Province, you will find in Winter Brook; some of the most patient people, some of the finest people. They have been very patient, waiting and asking: Is it our turn now?

While they have seen pavement go down, and seen the pavement taken up and put down again, they see upgrading done, and they see their road being widened, ditched and brought up to a certain standard, they still do not have what they are looking for. Sometimes they question it. I think it is something that the minister, in his wisdom, should look at because he knows a lot about road building. He worked at road building. I think the minister should look at the type of roads that we are putting through some of those communities.

When you go down to places that have been upgraded and paved, and you see the amount of money that has been spent, taking out every turn and cutting down every hill, and doing away with everything that would pose a possible danger, we have to realize - as much as we realize we want to err on the side of safety - that we are not talking about a super highway here. We are talking about a road through a community, and we are talking about operating on a very limited budget. We are talking about operating and providing services to a group of people who are not demanding but who deserve that particular service, and I think it is about time that we started looking at doing things a little bit different. Maybe it is time to go back and do some things the way they used to be done.

We talk about moving away from things, but not everything that was done in the past was bad. There were some good things done in the past, I say to members opposite, and one of them was road building; road building roads through communities, the communities of Lethbridge, Musgravetown, Bloomfield, an area that the Minister of Development and Tourism knows very well. He went down there and found a new bride. He had to drive the roads down there before he came up to where she lived. Here is a piece of road that was paved back in Ross Barbour's time. Ross Barbour was a Member of the House of Assembly here at the time, 1970 - no, before that; it was about 1968 or 1969. They paved the road through Musgravetown, Bloomfield and Lethbridge -

MR. TULK: Do you think I would make a good leader?

MR. FITZGERALD: I just said a road that you had to drive over very many times in order to find a bride.

They went down there, and all they did at the time was ditch a road, put in some culverts -

MR. TULK: A good road now.

MR. FITZGERALD: An excellent road now, but the road through Lethbridge has to be completed.

They put in some extra culverts there.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: The road through Lethbridge has to be completed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I can go along with that too.

MR. TULK: Do you think I would make a good leader, Roger?

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I am sure you would.

Mr. Chairman, they went there through Lethbridge, Bloomfield, Musgravetown; it was all done at the same time. They shaped up the road, put in a few culverts, and paved the road. They left the hills, they left the turns, they left the valleys, and there is nothing wrong with that. The speed limit through the community is thirty kilometers, or thirty miles an hour, fifty kilometers an hour, and I will tell you that I drove through there all my life and I never complained. I never did complain about a hill or about a turn, and it was never a problem if you obeyed the rules and regulations of the road.

Mr. Chairman, if the member at the time and if the minister at the time had gone to Winter Brook and looked at the size of the community, and looked at the money that was being spent to upgrade that particular road, they should have gone down and met with the people and said: Look, you want your road paved. We are going to offer you a plan A and a plan B. Here is plan A: we will upgrade your road and we will give you a super highway but we will not pave it. Plan B is: we will go and shape up your road, put in your culvert so it will not cause you any problem, and we will pave it.

They would have jumped at the opportunity. We would not have spent any more money. The road would have been paved. People would have been happy, and I would not be standing here today talking about the need for the people in Winter Brook to realize the basic need of having the road paved through their community.

Mr. Chairman, those people are not coming every day and saying that we want water and sewer. They are not coming and saying that we want a sidewalk put in. They are not coming and saying we need money to pay for our street lights. They are not coming and saying that we need anything from government other than some help to upgrade and maintain and pave a road that you are responsible for.

Those people get up every morning and they drive to work. It is not a dying community; it is a growing community. There are new houses going up there. The population is - it is not a big community - about seventy people living there. I doubt if there is one person there on social services, with no disrespect for people on social services, but they have all been fortunate enough to be able to have a job. Maybe I shouldn't use that phrase, not on social services. Maybe what I should say is, I don't know of one person there who is not looking after themselves by being fortunate enough to have a job.

They go out and they pay the same price for a litre of fuel. They pay the same price for their insurance. They pay the same price when they pay for registration on their vehicles and their driver's licence, as you and me, and all they are asking for - their plea is very simple. They are saying: Mr. Minister, all we are asking is that we be provided with a little bit of pavement so we can hang the clothes on the line on Monday morning, which is wash day, and we can open our windows in the summertime and allow a little bit of fresh air to blow through the house without eating dust every day. That is all they are asking for, and I don't think that is too much. The people in Jamestown, the same thing.

What I have done for the minister, I say to the minister, we are going to meet and talk about it. He promised me a meeting, and I am sure he will. He wrote a letter and asked for people to put forward their priorities in their district,. The last person who did that, I say to the minister, was a good minister as well, and she is now the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. When she was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, she put out the call to come over, I have some time, meet with me, tell me what your priorities are, and let's prioritize what work you want done in your community. That is the way a minister should work, I say to people opposite.

The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, and the Minister for Tourism are not ministers for Bonavista North or the Straits, or for Mount Pearl. They are ministers for Newfoundland and Labrador, and when they make decisions on where they spend their money, it should not be done in a partisan political way. It should not done that way because everybody is a Newfoundlander. I operate on that premise myself, that when you come here, you bring certain morals and convictions and you live by them. You have to look at yourself in the mirror the next day.

Mr. Chairman, when the election is on the go, when the writ is served and for twenty-one days you are out there knocking on doors, you are as political as you get, and so you should, and do what you have to do in order to win - and I will leave it to your judgement whether it is right or wrong - you do what you have to do to win; but at the end of the day when the votes are counted, at the end of the day when there is a winner declared, then my philosophy is that you forget about Liberal and Tory, and you forget about NDP, and you forget about Independents. The people who live in Terra Nova should be looked after by the Member for Terra Nova. The people who live in Bonavista South should be represented by the Member for Bonavista South, and it should not be done on a partisan way. When people call and say to me: Look, I didn't vote for you, or I did vote for you, I don't even comment. I say: Look, I am here to represent you, and if I can be of some help then I will be there.

If we start drawing lines and if we start closing doors on people and saying that we are not going to represent you, or we are not going to spend money in your district because you voted a certain way, then I tell you: You had better be coming from a position of strength the next time you run, because that same person might be the person that you need in order to get out and support you.

At lot of times they are, because if everybody voted the same way there would be no need of having elections. We might just as well have a monarchy; we would get somebody elected once and they are there forever.

I am a firm believer, Mr. Chairman, that most people here function in that direction, and that is the way that it should be done. We are living in a democratic country. People should be allowed to vote for who they want, whatever party they want, and at the end of the day that everybody would judge them fairly.

Sometimes I think that the American style of government is superior to ours in certain regards. In other regards we are far, far superior to their type of government because at least our government, as partial as it can be, has to be an effective government. It has to be an effective government because if it is an ineffective government then it does not be there. Government disappears, there is a writ served and there is another election. By the mere setup of our political system, governments have to function. That is not the way it is in the United States. They can have an ineffective government forever until the four years roll up, and everybody blames it on everybody else and there is no accountability there until election time. It can be different here in our system.

Roads is a big issue, and in order to maintain rural Newfoundland and Labrador and in order to attract industry to rural Newfoundland and Labrador we have to maintain our infrastructure. We have to make sure that if anybody is coming to look at the possibility of doing something in our particular area then we are ready for that and we can maintain that.

In my constituency we have two lumber yards that depend on roads in a big kind of way. While one lumber company is fortunate enough that the road going by its lumber yard is paved, the other one is not. The other lumber company, Jamestown Lumber Company Ltd., which employs in excess of eighty people, has a gravel road going through where the mill is. They have had great problems there. They have had great problems with dust playing havoc with their saws. It is a continuous job keeping the saws sharp in order to put out a good product. What they did is, they have accepted some of the responsibility themselves and they have gone and said to the local administrator, the regional director there: If you would be kind enough to come and put some crushed stone in front of our building here, which is your road anyway and it needs to be maintained, then we will pave our parking lot. That way it should help in keeping this a very viable business. That is what was done. They went and paved their parking lot. The only pavement on Winterbrook Road now is this big paved parking lot that Jamestown Lumber Company Ltd. has there, responsible people.

It was only a short time ago that I spoke with the manager there, a very smart businessman, a fellow, Bob Dingwall, the minister knows him because we met with him, and he indicated to me: I don't know what I am going to do if this company, somewhere down the road, may even have to go out and pay the cost of putting pavement along by our mill because we are having a terrible problem here and we don't know how long it can continue. We have eighty people, and those people are not being paid the minimum wage. Those people are being paid $10 to $15 an hour, which is not bad money.

Some of them work pretty well year around. So they can't have downtime by having to shut down the mill and sharpen their saws and do the things that need to be done. They have to sharpen their knives as well. Although I think Jamestown Lumber Company Ltd still use saws, the new sawmill, the Bloomfield Lumber Ltd., use knives. They use saws for re-saws and that kind of thing, but they use knives in order to take off the outer layer. Because of that they can use a much smaller saw log. In fact, they can make a two-by-two now out of a piece of wood something like two-and-one-half, two-and-three-quarter inches in the top from what I can understand. That needs to be done because a lot of our timber here in Newfoundland is small timber, and instead of sending it to the paper mills to be used as newsprint they can use it and extract a piece of building material from it. That is the reason why they are viable, that is why they are making money, that is why they are employing people.

That is another reason why this particular road needs to be paved. It doesn't need to be upgraded any more. The upgrading is done. The stone has been put on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them to vote Liberal.

MR. FITZGERALD: They did and they still never got it done. That is the problem, I say to the minister. Now they have a member in there who they know is sincere and hardworking, so maybe with a good minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? You?

MR. FITZGERALD: I'm talking about people from Port de Grave. That will come forward too, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: You know the way you were treated in Opposition, I say to the people opposite. There is a great fear there, Mr. Chairman, that once again they will be forgotten and looked over. The people in Jamestown as well -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You kicked everybody from Island Cove out of the Confederation Building. It was only the other day I was reading Hansard and the minister talked about all the people from Upper Island Cove working in here. He figured it was wrong. The minister was the minister of what at the time? The minister was the Minister of Public Works, Haig Young. I read with some interest an old Hansard where the minister now, the Member for Port de Grave, the member who represents Upper Island Cove, got up and accused Haig Young, and told him how wrong he was for having people from Island Cove working with government. They should be kicked out. They weren't allowed here, they should be gone. So I took a copy of it and sent it out to the post office to be put up in Upper Island Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Tory in Upper Island Cove.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not only the Tories, I say to the minister. There are people from Upper Island Cove -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. FITZGERALD: See, here is a prime example of what I was just referring to. How can people in Newfoundland and Labrador have respect for ministers, have respect for people who they go out and elect, and do it in a way that they should be allowed to do it, in a parliamentary way, when you have such partisanship being played by certain members who are in control of dispensing public money which comes from their pockets as well as somebody else? It shouldn't be that way. I would never be able to be that way.

The few paltry dollars that we get sometimes in the fall of the year to look after our constituents - very important, and I hope it is kept up - I usually put it out to the development associations because I feel that they reach out further in the community than if I put it to a town council. They reach beyond the boundaries of communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) with that.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I have no problem with it. I have no problem with the way the federal minister disperses money either, because it is put out there to help people and I know and you know how important it is. I have no problem with that. You have no worry about me saying something bad about the way money is dispersed to rural areas to help people who are unemployed. Even with the talk about more administration should be done, well, you know you shouldn't spend money on administration. You know and I know, and as responsible people here in this House, if we are going to direct money then we direct it to people who are responsible and put it in the right places. Every member here can get up and talk about the number of people who went to work and qualified for EI on the few dollars that we were fortunate enough to get.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got a chicken for Christmas.

MR. FITZGERALD: Very important. That is right, got a chicken for Christmas, you are so right, and put bread and butter on the table, and they were still allowed to live in a community and raise their families. Even though it was only the minimum wage, it was something, it was a help.

Mr. Chairman, everybody I think here who has been elected more than once, anyway, you know who your people are. I say your people; you know the people that support you. The first time you get elected you look at it and say: I will help this person now and I will do this and I will do that, and maybe they will change their mind. There are some people that will never change their mind. They will always vote along party lines, no matter who they are, and so be it. You have to accept that.

I say to members opposite that I was never the person to pick up the phone and call a rural development association or call another person and say: Do not hire this individual because they are a Liberal or because I do not know how they vote, or because I suspect that they voted another way. I was never the one to do that and I would not take part in it, because you do not gain by doing those kinds of things. If you respect the parliamentary system and you respect why you are here, then you should move away from that.

Before I sit down I have to talk about health care again. It is too bad the minister is not here, because my plea to the minister would be to immediately, at the first opportunity, allow health care boards to be elected. I think we have to get away from appointing health care boards. I think health care boards should be elected the same as school boards are. If we believe in boards - and obviously the government opposite believe in boards or they would not be there - if they are going to have them, then I think that they should be elected.

Far too often people are appointed to hospital boards and other boards to carry out the minister's wish and to carry out government's wish rather than to represent the people they were put there to represent. It was only a short time ago when I went and met with some nurses down in my constituency. I talked about the need then to have health care boards respond, the local representatives respond to the people in the local area that they serve.

The local administrator there in the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation called me. I expected a call from him. We had a chat about it because he disagreed and he knew what my thoughts were on it. They have not changed. My comment to him was that the problem I have with health care boards is: number one, they are not elected, they are appointed; and number two, they should be meeting with local people and head off some of those problems before people go out with the picket signs, because I think that can be done.

His comment to me was that that is not the health care boards' place to go and meet with local people. Health care boards bring the concerns to the table and we talk about it as a group. If we are going to operate in that kind of a way, then why do we need representation from certain areas? If we are only going to bring concerns to the table and not go and meet and talk with the people who have concerns - and I think his words were that those people should come and meet with me, meaning him. That is not the way I think health care boards should be structured. If we have regional representation, and if I have a problem, and it is in Clarenville or Bonavista, then the first thing I should know is who my representative is on that particular board and let's sit down and talk about it. Let's keep the line of communications open, because we all know what happens when that breaks down.

If this was happening within the health care department today, I feel very confident that a lot of our problems and a lot of those people we saw on the picket lines a few weeks ago, that could have caused greater problems than was already caused, all of that could have been changed. All of that could have been diverted and the problems could have been dealt with by the local board. That is what is not being done.

If we believe in the democratic process - and obviously we do because that is the only reason why we are here; it was that process that allowed us to come here and for me to stand here and talk as I am doing today - then how can we be against electing health care boards? How can we be against the democratic process of allowing people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to support and vote for the people they would like to bring their concerns forward to the board level to be dealt with and to explain the situations and have the problem dealt with in that kind of a manner? What is so wrong about that, I say to members opposite.

This is the kind of thing I think should happen. It is the kind of thing that will bring change. It is the kind of thing that people will feel a part of. Because right now, in the health care system of our Province, we have to travel very lightly because I am telling you it would not take much to cause another major problem. Even in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - I say this to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, and it is no news to him - I don't know what is going to happen, but one of these days, if something is not done in order to generate a little bit of hope, in order to create some economic activity, then I am telling you, the whole thing is going to blow up. It is unbelievable in places today, where you have five and six weeks' work through a job creation project, where people do not even realize unemployment insurance benefits, it is unbelievable the competition for those jobs.

There is one down in Port Union today where people are standing in front of the building and demanding that they go to work. They are demanding that they go to work not because they are selfish, not because they do not want somebody else to have that job, but they are demanding to go to work because they are doing something that will allow them to be able to live in the community where they want to live, to raise their family and to put bread and butter on the table. They have too much pride to go over to Bonavista and go to the department of social services and say: We want to access the pockets of the taxpayers of this Province in order to get some government handout to support our families. That is the reason why they are doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not beating up on any minister. I am just telling you the way it is and the way I see it. You know it very well. Up in your district it is probably even worse than down in mine, where you have had roads blocked, you have had people up there complaining that they cannot go to work. They are not out blocking roads because they have nothing to do. Those are good, honest people who want to go to work. I don't know what the answer is. I am not the person who will provide the answer, Mr. Chairman, but I think we have to do something. We have to do something in order to allow those people who want to work, to be able to go to work.

I don't see a lot wrong with getting involved in job creation, sometimes. I know it is not a long-term benefit and I know it is not the answer to all our economic problems. I know those of us who are fortunate enough to have a job sometimes turn up our noses and say that this is not the way it should be, that those people should go to work and contribute to society. All that is wonderful stuff, but I can tell you that if you went down to Bonavista or Port Union - and I am only using those couple of communities; I can use any community in rural Newfoundland - today and put out an advertisement saying there are half-a-dozen jobs or two jobs available tomorrow paying the minimum wage, and I am going to start interviewing at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, then you had better be prepared to be in a lineup to try to get to your office. Because people will be there standing in line in order to compete and be able to get an opportunity to go to work.

I think back on a few years ago when the Canadian Tire Store went to Clarenville. They were looking at the minimum wage. It was part-time employment. I think it was fifteen hours a week. They advertised they needed twenty-five or thirty people to go to work in the store there. The people who know Clarenville know that most people who work in Clarenville commute from around the bays to go in there. For the most part, people who live in Clarenville have been fortunate enough to have a decent job, either working with government or working with somebody almost on a year-round basis. Most people commute to Clarenville. They go there because it is a service centre where they can go and buy their groceries, access government offices, the hospitals and what have you. For the fifteen or twenty jobs that were advertised wanting to pay, at that time, probably only $5.00 an hour they had something like 2,000 job applications by people who wanted to go to work. Now that is unbelievable to relate to that kind of a thing if you are okay yourself. It is unbelievable to relate to that kind of thing if you cannot put yourself in the shoes of somebody else.

I know what it was like to be on unemployment insurance. I had been on it many times as a construction worker and as a fisheries worker. I would always stand - and lots of places you are in a situation where people come and meet you, and they reach out and shake your hand. The first comment, as Newfoundlanders - and it is not because we are nosy or anything else; it is because we care about people - is: What are you doing?

MR. TULK: What are you doing, boy?

MR. FITZGERALD: Although there is no embarrassment about it, it always put me in a very different situation when I had to look at somebody and say, I wasn't doing anything. I never, ever enjoyed saying that, I am not doing anything, or I am on Employment Insurance, or I am looking for a job. It is not something that I wanted to say. I could find myself sometimes even, when I was in that kind of a situation, that I would find an excuse to go to the washroom or I would disappear, because I wanted to work. I wanted to be doing something to contribute, and those people I am referring to here today, and the people I am putting before you, are no different than those people.

I want to relate another story and then I am going to sit down. I am going to tell you another little story. The Member for Terra Nova is listening very intently. I am going to tell you a story about another situation where, earlier in my little speech, I was talking about some phone calls you get that you cannot forget. Other phone calls you can put down the phone and walk away from because of the nature of the telephone call. Sometimes we get into an argument. I have had the argument here as well, and I know how the Member for St. John's West feels, and other people here feel, when we talk about the need to maintain schools. There is nothing wrong with that. Everybody would like to maintain what is in there community, and they would like to maintain it at an area where it is not changed a whole lot from what we are used to, because change does not always come as a positive thing.

I can never get the story out of my mind. I stood in my district, when they were going to away with busing there, and I supported the people there, and rode on the bus and did what I had to do in order to get the bus system changed back to the way it was because the people wanted it and I thought it made sense as well. There is one thing I will never forget. I worked four years over in Gaultois. Everybody knows where Gaultois is. The Minister of Environment and Labour represents the Community of Gaultois. In Gaultois there are a fair number of people there who are challenged in that they have a speech impairment and a hearing impairment. It is not uncommon there. When I say a fair number I mean there are some people there, as the minister knows.

I will never forget one winter when I was out in Gaultois doing some work. I was working in the plant there and the ferry, the Linda Hann II, I say to the minister, came in and was doing her trip between Hermitage and Gaultois. I have to say this in the right kind of way.

This fish plant worker who was there had a son who was hearing impaired and speech impaired. He was seven-years-old. He had gone into St. John's to attend the School for the Deaf, and he had come home for Christmas. The day that I got off the boat, going back to Gaultois to go to work, was the day that he was going back to St. John's. I would say he was about seven years old or eight years old. His mother, father and his sister took him to the wharf - I took it to be his sister, I am not sure if it was or not but there was somebody else with him. They took the little fellow to the wharf to be put on the Linda Hann II to go to Hermitage and connect with a taxi or a mode of transportation to come to St. John's. If you had seen or if you could hear the distraught, the hurt and the pain that was in that family's eyes, if you could see the tears in their eyes, and see what they were going through by taking this seven-year-old child, who had to be taken from the arms of the mother and the father and put on that boat to come to St. John's to attend the School for the Deaf, it would give you a whole different perspective when you start arguing about schools within two kilometers from your home, or having to get on a bus. It is something that you would never forget.

You can imagine what you were like, as somebody eighteen years old or twenty years old, who came in to go to University or to go to work. You had a knot in your stomach like that. You can imagine what that family was going through.

If you went back there today - I know the man quite well - I am sure that son would reach out and thank his mother and father for giving him an opportunity to expose him to be able to do something.

I think if it was me, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, with my heart, I think I would have probably taken him and carried him back to the house again and said to myself: We will survive.

I think that is the approach I would have taken, because I would not have had the heart to able to do it and to know what it meant to them. They did it and I admire them for it, and it is something that you never forget. It is something that stays with you, and it is something that I think we should all keep in mind. While we go and sometimes put on a fight because we want to keep something, look at what other people are going through sometimes and it will give you a feeling of what this is all about and what reality is.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I adjourn debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, it now being 5:30 p.m., I move that we adjourn.

CHAIR: We are still in Committee. You have to rise the Committee.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move 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 Port au Port.

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

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it now being 5:30 p.m., I move that the House adjourn.

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