April 13, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 17


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today thirty-one high school students from Canon Richards High School in the District of The Straits & White Bay North. They are accompanied by their teachers Ron Parrill, Paul May and Isaac Hutchings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity today to send congratulations to two constituents of mine, Mr. Bernard McGrath and his wife Marie, who will be celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary on Saturday, April 30.

Mr. McGrath was a long time employee of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and retired a few years ago. His wife Marie operated a store in the community of Patrick's Cove for many years. Mr. McGrath is also a World War II veteran. They retired a few years ago and moved to Placentia, into one of the cottages at the Lion's Manor, and have been enjoying their retirement ever since. They raised a large family and the family will be coming together on April 30 to celebrate this major event in their home.

Mr. McGrath also turns eighty-five years of age on April 26, so it is kind of a double enjoyment for everybody, and I would just like to take the opportunity today to send congratulations to the McGrath family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to brief members on a business success story in my district. The Eagle River Credit Union is coming off a very successful 1999. In fact, it is the best year of their fifteen year history. The Eagle River Credit Union increased their assets by $7.7 million in 1999 and have -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS JONES: Seven point seven million dollars in 1999, and have now reached assets of almost $30 million. The growth of this credit union has been phenomenal. This upsurge has made them the second largest credit union in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The four branches of the credit union, located in L'Anse-au-Loup, Cartwright, Mary's Harbour and St. Anthony, all experienced growth in 1999 and it is predicted this trend will continue in the year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate this organization for their efforts and I want to praise the staff, the membership and the board of directors in helping the Eagle River Credit Union achieve its growth. I wish them continued success in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, on behalf of all members, the grade VI class from St. Theresa's School in the District of St. John's Centre, accompanied by their teacher Ms Bradbury.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take this opportunity to respond to the announcement this morning by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the 2000 snow crab management plan. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is in full support of the overall reduction of 25 per cent in this year's crab quota.

The 1999 snow crab landings reached a record level of approximately 69,000 metric tonnes, having increased from approximately 16,000 tonnes in 1992. This dramatic increase in landings, which was recommended by scientists, has been a key factor in the fishing industry's performance over this period. The 15,000 tonne reduction in this year's quota is based on the most current scientific assessment which cannot be ignored.

It is imperative that we proceed on the side of caution and listen to scientific evidence to ensure a sustainable crab fishery for the long term. We agree that prudent management measures must be taken considering the latest scientific information which shows a reduced commercial biomass and low recruitment of juvenile crab in the fishery. As we have said many times in the past, we must manage our fishery in a conservation-minded manner, and given the scientific assessment that has been presented to us, the only responsible thing to do is proceed with a reduction.

It should be clearly understood that the reduction in the snow crab quota is not the result of over fishing as was the case with Northern cod. The snow crab resource has been managed in a most prudent manner over the years and this explains why the quota increased dramatically over the 1992-1999 period. In the absence of healthy juvenile snow crab recruitment year after year there is bound to be cyclical fluctuations in the resource, which in turn will lead to quota adjustments like those announced today for the 2000 fishing season.

I would like to point out that the snow crab market remains very strong and we anticipate that upward price adjustments for crab landings this year will offset, for the most part, the quota reductions announced today. Once the fishery commences we will have a better understanding of the impact this reduction will have on processing employment in the crab sector.

I want to conclude by saying that the reductions announced today are being made for prudent fisheries management reasons for the longer term benefit of the industry. This is why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supports the reduction announced today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me, on behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, thank the minister for sending us a copy of his statement.

As I tuned in today to find out the results of this announcement, I was really dumbfounded to find out that just as in 1992 when another announcement was made - only that time, I guess, more severe about the closing of a fishery - the fishermen, the harvesters of the resource, were again today locked out of the DFO media briefing. The fishermen were not allowed in to that briefing again today.

The only thing, I say to the minister, that was different in 1992, in how the fishermen were handled today, was a fellow named Cabot Martin and the present minister, who in 1992 at least tried to break down the doors so that the fishermen could get in; but today the doors were not broken down and the fishermen of the Province were again barred out of that meeting.

There is a lot of concern in the Province today as it relates to the crab fishery.

MR. EFFORD: That is not true.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is true. We were down there, Mr. Speaker; they were not allowed in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things in the minister's statement that I want to respond to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not so sure that we can very confidently say that the resource has been prudently managed, as the minister says in his statement. For example, in the statement that was made today, in the statement that was issued by DFO today, it was clearly pointed out that a problem was observed in recruitment of female crab in 1995. Now, if that advice had been acted on, or if that scientific information had been acted on in 1995, maybe some of this pain could have been staged over a five or six year period. Perhaps it could have been. I don't know. I am just raising the issue, could it have been? I think it is up to the minister to tell us.

The other thing, of course, that flows out of this statement is that yes, there is optimism and, I think, room for proper optimism that the fishermen themselves will be able to recoup a lot of their losses because of the price increase. The problem, though, is going to be with the plant workers. The plant workers, however way you cut it, are going to be facing, along the Northeast Coast and in Labrador in particular, a 30 per cent reduction in the hours that they are working because there is a 30 per cent reduction in the amount of resource available for processing. That is going to be a problem that the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to have to address.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no difficulty in supporting the reduction that was announced today in the crab fishery. The only question, I suppose, is whether or not it is significant enough and significantly cautious enough. With a serious reduction in the biomass, one wonders whether this level can be sustained for another year, next year. We are, unfortunately, in the position where we cannot guarantee that we can fish the maximum amount of any resource and continue to do that . There is so much uncertainty. You know, ten years ago this wasn't even a significant fishery. Now, we are dealing with dependence on this to the point where, as the previous Opposition critic -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - has indicated, where so many people, not only fishermen but plant workers, are dependent on this, that we do have to be extremely cautious, extremely responsible and extremely prudent in our projections.

I hope that the fishermen will accept the reductions that are here. I hope it is sufficient. I know there is going to be some advantage to the increased price, but there are going to be serious losses in the processing sector. I think we have to accept that if we are going to have and continue to have a high level of employment and economic activity in rural Newfoundland.

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

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

I am pleased today to report that we have approved funding, through Disaster Financial Assistance Program, to repair damages caused by a storm surge on the South Coast of our Province earlier this year. This action is part of the $4.3 million commitment made by our government in this year's Budget. A portion of this funding will be recovered on application to the federal government.

In Trepassey, $242,000 has been approved to restore damages to a sea wall and two sanitary sewer outfalls to pre-storm conditions. In Bay de Verde, $125,000 has been approved to make repairs to a damaged outfall. We are also continuing to work with other eligible communities that are seeking funding to repair damages caused by the storm surge.

Mr. Speaker, more damage was done last month in the communities of Belleoram, St. Jacques- Coombs Cove, Cupids, Brigus Sunnyside, Clarkes Beach and Colliers. Heavy rains caused flooding which damaged roads and infrastructure. I am also pleased today to inform members that government has provided $61,000 in emergency funding for Belleoram to help repair the immediate damages in that community.

In Belleoram, damage occurred in three locations: in the Church Road area where two culverts across Church Road were damaged and a culvert across the Main road was completely blocked; along the road leading to an abandoned school, including debris on the property; and along a section of Main Street where the shoulder of the road was washed away. This $61,000 funding, which was requested by the Town Council of Belleoram, has ensured that blocked culverts were cleared and the integrity of the roads in question were maintained.

Mr. Speaker, assessment of non-emergency damages have also been completed in many of these same areas. The department has worked with all the communities to assess the needed repairs, and required funding for these communities will be given the highest priority under the Municipal Capital Works program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We, on this side of the House, share this announcement. I say to the minister that it is a timely response, given the complexity of these matters; more timely than, for example, when the government responded to the situation in Marystown a few years ago and it took a much longer time.

Mr. Speaker, we know that these funds are needed in these communities. We note as well that this will permit the communities to get on with the business of providing services, and in some cases will provide essential services to get on with the industries of the communities.

We note as well that the Insurance Bureau of Canada has made some statements regarding a federal/provincial cooperation program that they are suggesting, whereby the provinces and the federal government might put monies aside each year so that we can be ready to meet these kinds of disasters that occur, particularly in view of the climate changes and the frequency with which these disasters occur in and around our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We support the minister's statement, in support for these communities. Clearly, this type of extraordinary cost and expense should be shared by all the people of the Province. It is an unfortunate situation that we do have natural disasters of this nature, and it is quite appropriate that we all share in this cost. It is perhaps something that we could plan for in the longer run by working out some special program or having special protocol in place as to when disasters can be announced by government so that we do kick in with collective support for communities in disaster situations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As most hon. members are probably aware, the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation benefitted from a successful VOCM/CFCB Garden of Hope Radiothon yesterday. More than $64,000 was raised to assist with maintaining the Garden of Hope at the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre here in St. John's, and to provide much needed equipment at Cancer Centres across the Province. Money pledged in the Western regional in particular will specifically go to the construction of the new Cancer Centre and the development of a new Garden of Hope at the Corner Brook facility. In the six years that the Garden of Hope Radiothon has been carried out, it has raised almost $200,000 to assist cancer patients and their families in this Province. Many thanks to the citizens of this Province who always make it a priority to make donations for such good causes as this one.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the members of the Legislature that government is also concerned with ensuring patients in this Province receive the kind of health care they need to manage their cancer related illness. In a special one-time arrangement, the Department of Health and Community Services has recently provided $72,575 to allow the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to complete renovations in the new Cancer Centre Western Region in Corner Book. The redevelopment of this unit is well underway at this point at a total cost of over $500,000. Including the recent payment made by government, government has provided over $400,000 of this total redevelopment cost, with the remaining raised, again, through fundraising efforts like the one yesterday. By providing this funding, the department is helping to ensure that cancer patients and their families have a state-of-the-art treatment centre in Corner Brook, in the western region.

The quality care of cancer patients is important to this government, That is why in the Budget this year we also provided approval for the replacement of radiation therapy equipment which is instrumental in the treatment of cancer.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in this Province, and across the country. In conclusion, I would like to assure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we have highly skilled health professionals caring for patients with cancer,. We also have a solid cancer program, evidenced by the recent successful accreditation of the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. The success of such programs is made much easier when governments, corporations like VOCM and CFCB, and the residents of the Province work together for worthy initiatives. Thank you to all who participated in events like the Radiothon yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly, too, offer congratulations to those involved in this effort. VOCM, CFCB, and all those who contributed I think were the main people we should thank here in the process. It is good to see we are developing opportunities in different parts of the Province so people don't have to travel outside the region. I have raised the issue before, as the minister is well aware, that I'm a strong believer that in each region of the Province there have to be adequate facilities to be able to treat various illnesses, including cancer. Because it takes a toll on the patient himself or herself and on their families, disrupted by having to travel into St. John's to stay here for extended periods of time.

I'm delighted to see it is moving forward in the Corner Brook area of the Province, as well as beefed up in other centres that can offer at least certain services that would not normally be available there.

I certainly would like to add, with reference to the treatment of cancer, that it has been a concern here, and we have had problems here in being able to get adequate treatment. We have had medical physicists, radiation therapists and so on, through a reclassification, to try to make their wages a bit competitive to retain people here in the capacity. We have had, even in a recent announcement here, concerns as to the ability to be able to provide the treatment of people within a safe time period, and an offer to travel to private clinics in the United States if a need arises.

So we do need to have a more beefed up service here. We have had problems in the past with a turnover within several months of every medical -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. We had a turnover just over a year ago of every single medical oncologist, basically, that we had here in the Province. It has stabilized somewhat now. We have to continue to try to stay competitive in terms of the personnel providing this life-saving treatment, and we also have to put great emphasis on having regional areas of our Province where we can provide the service to people close to their homes because it has a devastating affect on the recovery, on the patient himself or herself, and on their families as a result.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

I think it is fair to say that the generosity of the people of this Province has come through once again. It is important to have treatment centres such as this in the Province so that the patients and their families can be cared for much better. I do want to say that in such an issue as serious as this, one can question whether or not we should have to rely upon the charity of the people of the Province to provide a much needed service as serious as cancer treatments and facilities. It is great to see the people of the Province come forward and respond to initiatives like this, but again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - we have to question whether or not we should have to be doing that.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Just as many fishermen, plant workers and processors in the Province have expected for the last several weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced significant reductions in crab quotas in all fishing zones around Newfoundland and Labrador today, except 3Ps and 4R+3PN.

My question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is this: Was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador briefed on the extent of those quota reductions prior to today's announcement? If so, can the government now inform the House what contingency plans it has in place to deal with the 30 per cent reduction in employment hours, especially along the Northeast Coast and Labrador where this loss of employment is going to be most severe?

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

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me correct the misinformation that the hon. member gave in reaction to my statement. The fishermen were not barred from a briefing this morning. They were barred from the media briefing. There was a separate briefing given at 12:30 this morning to all industry stakeholders, and the fishermen certainly could have attended that if they had so chosen.

Were we briefed prior to today's announcement? Yes, as well as everybody else in the industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. Actually, I had the first briefing on the state of the stocks, from a harvesting point of view, last December. At that time, the Campelen trawl surveys were not completed and we did not get any information from that then but we did just prior to going to the Boston Seafood Show.

What contingency plans do we have in place? Well, we cannot control nature's way of doing things. Nature caused this reduction. It is not caused by over fishing. In fact, last year's quotas were the largest ever in the history of -

AN HON. MEMBER: The second-largest (inaudible) this year.

MR. EFFORD: This, actually, is the second-largest crab quota in the history of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: This year coming.

MR. EFFORD: This year coming. Let's keep in mind what happened last year. We had a very successful industry last year, a $1 billion export value, but at that same time we left 42,000 tonnes of uncaught quota of different species of fish in the water. So, given the increase in crab prices this year - and let's take all of the 16 million pounds of shrimp that we didn't take out last year, 8,000 tonnes of turbot, scallops, tuna, red fish and other species, I think it can significantly make up for any loss of employment that is going to be lost through the crab processing this year.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when the minister made his statement, it is anticipated that the increase in prices will result in certainly perhaps the fishermen, the harvesters, not suffering any great economic loss. We all admit that. The problem, of course, is that will not be the case for the plant worker who this year will have 30 per cent along the Northeast Coast and Labrador, will have 30 per cent less raw material to process than last year, resulting in 30 per cent less work, resulting in 30 per cent less hours of work than last year. That is the question I am trying to zero in on, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the minister: Has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - knowing, as it has for weeks, that this situation was coming - approached the Government of Canada with a view to working out some sort of an assistance package to help those plant workers who are going to be negatively affected?

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

MR. EFFORD: The answer to the last part of the question first, absolutely not. We haven't even given a thought to doing that, and it wouldn't make any sense. First of all, it is 30 per cent less work, or expected work, in the crab industry this year; but, except for lat year, it is more than we have ever had in the history of the Province. This is the second-largest quota we have had in the history of the crab fishery.

Now, take into consideration -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Take into consideration the 42,000 tonnes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Do you want the answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Well, listen and you will get it.

Forty-two thousand tonnes of fish that were not harvested last year can and will be harvested this year and processed in most of the same plants that were talking about taking a reduction in crab production.

If we are going to have less weeks of work in crab, we can certainly make up a significant number of those weeks, and maybe more, in the harvesting of the species that we didn't catch last year; 42,000 tonnes of uncaught fish last year, that was not caught and was not processed. Therefore, if it was not processed, the people in the plants did not get that work. Take that out of the ocean this year, put it through the processing plants, and those people will get extra hours, extra weeks of work.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the answer then is, there is no contingency plan. The only plan is hope, some hope, that there will be extra species of some sort caught.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the minister: Today's announcement, while harsh in economic terms, is relatively simple as it applies to areas 2J and 3K. It is a total 30 per cent across the board reduction. It is not so simple, though, when it comes to the 20 per cent reduction for area 3L+3N+3O as the minister knows. The small boat fishermen, for example, in the 20-mile zone in that particular fishing zone, who will lose 20 per cent of their 17,000 pound quota with no access to groundfish, stand to be economically devastated.

So I ask the minister: Is there any plan to help those fishermen who are going to be so severely cut in their quota?

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

MR. EFFORD: Crying wolf, preaching doom and gloom, crisis before the fishing season has even started. Mr. Speaker, I was here from 1985 to 1989. We knew what doom and gloom was all about when the middle distance and the factory freezer trawlers came in place. We knew all about that then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: This fishery is going to be managed in a prudent manner which is going to protect the fishermen, the plant workers, and the industry as a whole for the long term. It is not going to be based on a reactionary situation. It is going to be pro-action, and that is what was put in place this morning. Who said the small boats are going to take a 20 per cent cut? That is not -

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what I (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, you said it. Is there a contingency plan in place due to the fact that the small boat fishermen are going to take a 20 per cent cut? That has not been decided yet. That will be decided in consultation meetings over the next number of days or weeks, whatever it takes, to work out an appropriate plan that is going to impact on every sector.

There are other things in the ocean besides crab. I am not going to say that the small boat fishermen are not going to find an impact this year, but we are willing to work with the small boat fishermen looking at whelk, looking at caplin, looking at cod, looking at blackback flounder, herring, mackerel, squid. There is more in the ocean than crab.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the small boat fishermen. Tell the truth, you don't (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the minister's attempt to politicize the answer will cause crab fishermen in St. Bride's to dance in the streets tonight with joy, I'm sure.

Now the minister is aware that the crab fishery in area 3L+3N+3O consists of many different categories of fishing and licences. Let me ask the minister this: Can the minister tell the House whether or not the exploratory crab fishery in 3L+3N+3O will be reduced by 20 per cent? Will it be cancelled? What is the status of the exploratory crab fishery in that particular area?

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

MR. EFFORD: The exploratory crab fishery will take the greatest decrease this year, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there will be no further exploratory quotas out in 3L+3N+3O this year. Now, I hadn't the time this morning to sit down and go through all of the details on each zone and which group will take the greatest decrease on the sectors. You have the small boat fishermen, you have the 150 pot, you have the large supplementary, you have the full-time, and you have outside the 200-mile limit where the large supplementary and the full-time fish. We will find out over the next couple of days, but we know that the large boats are mobile. They have the ability to fish many different species unlike the small boat fishermen. We are very aware of that and the plans that will be put in place, full consultation held with the industry as a whole, will be to have the least amount of impact on the small boat fishermen.

So do not let the hon. member say that we do not care about the small boat fishermen. We do care about the small boat fishermen. We do care about all fishermen, all plant workers, everybody in the industry!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: The jury is out on that yet, Mr. Speaker. The minister just responded to my question on the exploratory crab fishery out in 3L+3N+3O. My final supplementary has to do with the experimental fishery which is another category, as the minister knows, in 3L+3N+3O. Is the plan to continue with that fishery this year? What is the status of that particular fishery?

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

MR. EFFORD: My understanding from my discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this morning, and with my officials of my department on the briefing that they were given this morning, is that there will be no further experimental fisheries outside the 200-mile limit or in 3L+3N+3O or on the Nose and Tail anywhere outside the 200-mile limit.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem on our hands. The one thing we are not going to do is create panic all across the Province. The fishermen themselves, the industry as a whole, are a part of the management plan. DFO does not make decisions in isolation of the fishermen. Everybody sits at the same table. The fishermen themselves have said: We recognize there is a problem, we know we are going to lose some money in the crab fishery this year, but we would rather take some short-term pain for some long-term gain. That is prudent management, unlike when we built the middle distance fleets and that really cut out the small boat fishermen.

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

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

My question today is for the President of Treasury Board. Minister, section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act requires that before a special warrant is approved the necessity has to be of an urgent nature. The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods received an approval on March 12, 1999 to pay the Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy Nature Trust $1 million. However, this Trust was not established until September 14, 1999, a full six months later.

I ask the minister: How did this special warrant meet the requirements of section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member opposite that the special warrant issued for the Legacy Nature Trust was in complete compliance with the Financial Administration Act. In fact, when the entity was formed last spring the cheque was issued and held in trust until all the board of directors were named and the organization was set up. It was held and the warrant was in complete compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

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

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

I say to the minister that on March 12, 1999 the Newfoundland Municipal Financial Corporation was given $5 million in the form of a special warrant for their reserve fund. As of July 31, 1999, four months after the fiscal year-end, there was still $9 million in their reserve fund. Obviously, there was no urgent need for this special warrant. How did this special warrant meet the requirements of section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say to the member opposite that all the special warrants that were tabled in this House were done in proper order and in complete compliance. I would say that all the special warrants that were issued were issued by a minister. The usual requirement is that the minister must indicate in writing that an urgent need exists, which was done. All documents must be tabled in the Legislature in accordance with strict time frames, which was done. A supplementary supply bill must be approved by the Legislature for all special warrants relating to spending. In fact, all of these have been carried out. They were in complete compliance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's definition of urgent must be different than mine: six months later.

Why is it, minister, that $123.8 million out of the $136.1 million issued in special warrants for the fiscal year 1998-1999 was issued in March, the last month of the fiscal year? Isn't government contravening the Financial Administration Act by abusing the use of special warrants to manipulate the bottom line of the Budget? The Auditor General says that there was $95 million in contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say to the member opposite is that government must have flexibility to take care of urgent needs as they arise. I would also say that government is a complex organization. With a budget of $3.4 billion, we must have the flexibility to respond to situations as they arise. Again, I say to the member opposite, they were all in complete compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Justice. At times, certain persons for many different reasons are held in hospitals or institutions throughout the Province under the Mental Health Act. I would like to ask the minister: When a person is held under the Mental Health Act, are they a ward of the Crown? Is the Crown responsible for their safety and well-being?

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that anyone who is hospitalized pursuant to that act, of course, as entitled to anyone who is in a provincial institution would be entitled to all safety requirements that fall on the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, on July 28, 1998, John Francis Careen of Placentia fell to his death from an open window at St. Clare's Hospital in St. John's. Needless to say, this tragedy has caused the Careen family untold misery and suffering. They are looking for answers and have asked for a judicial inquiry into circumstances surrounding John's death. The last correspondence to your department, minister, was in January of this year. There has still been no response.

I would to ask the minister today when the Careen family can expect this inquiry to receive approval from his department.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, whether or not an inquiry is held is determined based upon recommendations usually by the Chief Medical Examiner in the Province. He or she can recommend to the minister if such an inquiry be held. At this point the department has not decided what that ultimate decision will be.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the minister is fully aware that he can put forward an inquiry without the Chief Medical Examiner. The Careen family and their lawyers have dealt with three Ministers of Justice on this issue: Minister Decker, Minister Dicks, and now you, Minister Parsons. They have waited almost two years for an answer from the Department of Justice.

As I ask these questions today, family members join us in the gallery, still waiting for an answer. I want to ask the minister: Isn't it time it assist this family in finding the answers? Isn't it time to set the record straight on what happened to John Francis Careen? Isn't it time to do the right thing and order a judicial inquiry today?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, a minister decides upon an inquiry if he thinks it is necessary in the protection of the public interest or in the public safety. As indicated earlier, I am aware of the Careen inquiries very recently. It is still under review, and an ultimate decision has not yet been made. We hope to be in a position to make that decision in the very near future.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The watershed of the Main River in the Premier's former federal riding contains one of the most significant old growth arboreal forests in all of North America. Currently, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper plans to log that area. I want to ask the Premier whether his government is prepared to ensure that this area is protected, and is part of what we hope will be the Heritage River under the Main River next to the Gros Morne National Park? Will he ensure that his government will see that area is protected and work with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to identify alternate sources of fibre to ensure that this area is protected, and that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has adequate resources to continue to produce pulp and paper?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That particular project was registered under the environmental review as we speak. We did submit the guidelines to the company. These guidelines are now in front of the department officials and we are presently going through that. Within the time frame, at the end of the thirty days, we will make a decision as to if the environmental preview was satisfactory, or will we go farther.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the question really is not whether it is going to be environmentally done, but whether it is going to be done at all. This is a significant resource and ought to be protected for all of us. The Government of British Columbia took a leadership role in working out arrangements between the logging industry, the environmental industry and those who want to protect the old growth forests. Why can't this government take a leadership role as well and do the same time here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment gave, I believe, what was an appropriate respond. The Minister of Environment said that a proper objective environmental assessment is going to be done, that the issues that concern the ministry will be addressed, and in due course a decision will be handed down.

I think it is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for those who depend upon the forestry industry in our Province, to understand the position of the Leader of the NDP. I give him full credit for making his position clear. The position of the Leader of the NDP is that large portions of the Province should be set aside - from the point of view of forestry resource - notwithstanding whether or not environmental concerns are met.

What the Leader of the NDP has just said is that even if there is an environmental review, even if environmental concerns have been met, even if all of that occurs, then a large portion of the forest resource should not be harvested; it ought to be set aside.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the forestry industry is one of the largest and least talked about in our Province. We do have a fibre gap in our forestry industry. That gap will close over the next fifteen years as new growth comes into being, but if we decide today that we are going to take large portions of the Province, notwithstanding environmental review and notwithstanding every environmental concern being met, and set those aside, then we have to start deciding which paper machines are going to close; and every one of those machines - yes, I say to the Leader of the NDP, you are shaking your head - every one of those machines is several hundred jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: So I say to the Leader of the NDP, I wonder whether the unions who represent those workers know of the position that he has taken today in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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. The Auditor General has repeatedly expressed concern over the lack of information being provided to the House of Assembly by agencies of the Crown and the university which are funded primarily by the public purse. The Auditor General has recommended development of an accountability framework for all public sector entities in the Province. Why has the minister failed to have the annual financial reports of hospital boards, school boards, the university, the colleges and a host of other Crown entities tabled in the House of Assembly as suggested by the Auditor General?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the member opposite's question, I would have to say to the Member for Waterford Valley that the accountability framework for boards and agencies is well underway. There was a bill before this House last spring, as you recall, and it was later decided that a policy arrangement would best serve the boards and the people of this Province. This framework accountability is well in progress and you will be interested - if you would like to have a copy of it I would be pleased to offer you one.

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

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

The Auditor General reported that the progress report, which (inaudible) by the guidelines for departmental planning and accountability for 1998-1999 was due in May, 1999, but was deferred. I want to ask the minister: Will the government meet its target, have the accountability progress report for 1999-2000 ready for this May, as has been suggested previously, and will she table that report in the House of Assembly?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I previously said, the accountability framework is well underway. In fact, most of the boards out there are now in progress, putting this into place. I would have to refresh the member opposite's memory. In fact, the budget itself this year contained provisions for acceptance of the accountability framework, not unlike the member opposite who, in their Blue Book, was against board setups for hospitals and education and so on. We are going further than the original bill that was before this House set out. We are going to include more entities and organizations than that bill ever decided to set out.

Thank you.

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

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

The minister noted that last year the government tabled an act in the House, an act to provide for an accountability framework for public bodies, but that act was later let die on the Order Paper. Is it the government's intention to introduce a similar piece of legislation? Will it be done in this session? If not, why not?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, government always has the option to introduce new legislation at any point, and we will always have that option to reintroduce legislation for accountability framework. However, this is a bold step to bring in accountability framework for boards and entities in this Province. We would rather use a cooperative approach and work with the boards. We have already done that. We have already had many training and planning sessions. We have an accountability framework manual in place. We even have a new booklet prepared now for members who will serve on all those boards. So, we are well in progress and I am quite satisfied with the progress to date.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Nurses who wish to do advanced training to become nurse practitioners can enter a one-year program at the Centre for Nursing Studies. This is the third year the program has been offered and there have been twenty-two nurse practitioners who have graduated from this program and are licensed to practice here in our Province. Nurse practitioners are very valuable to our health care system and are trained to do various tasks and procedures that were normally done by doctors.

I ask the minister: Has he identified areas of our health care system where these nurse practitioners can obtain employment and remain here in our Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, the introduction of the program was done because of the fact that the health care boards in Newfoundland and Labrador had already identified areas where they thought they could usefully engage nurse practitioners, and many of the boards actually have plans to employ the graduates from the program. As well, there was funding provided in the Budget this year, I think in the range of just over $1 million, to enable the hospital boards, the boards that run our institutions, to actually put on salary and to hire the graduates of the Nurse Practitioner Program in several regions of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He should tell that to all of the boards, I would say. I am aware of a case where a nurse practitioner just had to seek work outside our Province on a oil rig off Nova Scotia, one who graduated last August, I might add. Even though she was sponsored by a health care board, actually the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, when she graduated she had to return to her regular position. Now, to maintain her nurse practitioner licence, you must have 1,800 hours over two years, which equates to about half-time, one year in two. With time running out to maintain this status after eight months, and still having to work in a regular position prior to doing this course, she obviously had no choice but to make a decision to take a job on an oil rig off Nova Scotia.

I ask the minister: Is he concerned that qualified medical professions are not being utilized to their potential in our health care system?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr Speaker, it is very much a bigger issue actually than just the nurse practitioners. That is why, in fact, we have a human resource group that has been working with the health care boards and the department to look at the maximum utilization of each of the skill sets for all of the health care professionals we have. We debated last week in the Legislature a private member's motion talking about increasing and maximizing the scope of practice for our Licenced Practical Nurses so that they could relieve nurses of some of their duties. The same discussion is going on within the committee in terms of maximizing the uses of the nurse practitioners so that, in particular, some general practice and family practice physicians can have some of the burden lifted and relieved from them so they can dedicate themselves to things that only physicians can do in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Most of the health care boards are in a circumstance now where they are trying to maximize the use of all the professional groups, no less and no more than they are trying to do with the nurse practitioners. That is why in this Budget, this year, we did put in over $1 million to make sure that the boards could actually hire the nurse practitioners, some of which were sponsored, as the hon. member points out, and some of which just chose to do the course because they want to engage in that kind of work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I met with the group of some twenty-two potential graduates a week or so ago. They raised some of these issues with us and most of them are expecting that they will probably be employed upon completion of their training.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This nurse received sponsorship from the board, and she is required to pay back the salary that she received during her year of training. I ask the minister: Does he consider it appropriate to request a salary payback when a sponsored person is not given employment in the position to which they were sponsored?

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

MR. GRIMES: I guess, Mr. Speaker, I can read from the hon. member's question that if they were the government, which they are not - some people would suggest fortunately, others unfortunately - that they would, in fact, enable someone - because the circumstance that he describes needs an explanation. The circumstance described is that a person who was in the employ of a health care board agreed contractually with that board that the board would pay them most, if not all, of their salary while they trained so they would be treated as if they were still working while they were getting increased skill sets. The person may not have gone back and used the new skill sets to the maximum advantage, but they certainly could have gone back to a job that they had.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: They received payment as if they worked. If they do not go back, I am sure they would be standing up asking another question as to why the Auditor General would suggest that they were offered money on a contractual basis that they would pay back, and then that the board did not try to get the money back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: So, they have to make up their minds where they stand on these kinds of issues. It is a good program. It is working well, and I am sure that they would like to see it properly enforced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 2. I believe we have agreement that we will do the Concurrence debate on whichever of the three reports we wish to do the Concurrence debate. When the time runs out, we will put the question.

Order 2, but no particular report. We will deal with all reports by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, the Concurrence Motion on Social Services Committee, Resource Committee, and Government Services Committee.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you going into committee or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

I am pleased to stand in my place again today and tell the people of the Province the truth about this Budget. What the government is trying to portray and what the people of the Province are actually getting are two different things.

First of all, they are trying to say that they have a $34 million deficit. In actual fact, if you take everything into consideration, there is a much bigger deficit than that. I will tell you why; because they are using the one-time, the quick fix that they have been doing in the past three or four years trying to balance out the Budget.

Of course, if you listen to the Auditor General and what she has stated in the past, is that they are abusing special warrants. I asked questions today in the House of Assembly with respect to special warrants, and the abuse that this government has done with respect to special warrants over the past few years. We have addressed this before, as a matter of fact, many times in the past. I brought it up in the Estimates the other night and the minister, of course, tried to address it.

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Before we get too far into the debate of the Budget today in the House, and before too many of the members leave the House, there is an important event happening today in the House in the life of one of our members. I thought it would be appropriate to bring it to the attention of the House for whatever action they deem to be appropriate to take in this regard. I want to point out that the current Minister of Finance is reporting, with great delight, that the previous Minister of Finance is today celebrating his 50th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure what the current Speaker of the House wants to do in recognition of that on behalf of the former Speaker of the House, but I can say that the current Minister of Finance, on behalf of the previous Minister of Finance, would simply like to say to him: Happy Birthday. I have been there, I have done that, and it is not all bad. I can tell you that getting fifty, as opposed to other alternatives, I would take turning fifty any time.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

To that no point of order, as usual, I would like to congratulate the former Minister of Finance, and wish him a happy 50th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Actually, I thought he was much older than fifty, to be honest with you. I thought it might be his sixtieth. He looks much older. And the way he handles himself is much older, too. From the stories I hear about the minister, he acts much younger than fifty years old, I can guarantee you that.

Back to the Budget and the comments I want -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have to set the record straight. The Minister of Finance is in fact fifty, but looks twenty-nine.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The former Minister of Finance, the current Minister of Mines and Energy.

The member who just spoke opposite is in fact twenty-nine, but because he is ‘folliculely' challenged, he looks fifty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we conclude, I think it might be appropriate to respond to this unexpected piece of news in the point of order. The Premier made the mistake and said the Minister of Finance. It is interesting that he transferred me to the Energy portfolio, which probably in itself is a comment on how it has gone in the last few years. As much as the hon. current Minister of Finance says he has been there and done that, I want to say to him as well that I've been there and done that too, and the Energy portfolio is not the worst in the world. There is certainly much to be improved.

Like most fifty year old vessels, which we all become in time, we tend to find that the timbers are creaking a little more, and they have dried out beyond what they used to be at a younger age. I must say when I was young, I always had the hope that I would some day be older and wiser, and today I say I have achieved at least 50 per cent of my ambition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he achieved the older part for sure.

What I say to the comments of the Premier is that - when you look at the Premier you will understand what I am going to say - God made a few perfect heads and he covered his mistakes up with hair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: By the way - I won't go any further on that one. I will get back to the Budget.

This government oftentimes are often their feet trying to tell us what great shape the Province is in, what a great budget they are bringing down each year over the past few years, but we addressed it and told the truth with respect to the Budget. Last week I used the word trickery, and I was brought up on it, with respect to the Budget. I maintain that this Budget is full of trickery and slight of hand.

The government is all the time saying what a great job they are doing here in the Province. They claim that this Province is leading the country in economic growth. Can I comment about the Premier leaving the House of Assembly now, I wonder? No, I can't.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) too long, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he has been here too long, I would say.

This Province since 1992 has lost 7 per cent of our population. Recently we heard - and I hope the stats are correct - that is starting to stabilize and possibly reversing itself. In actual fact, if you take into consideration 40,000 people leaving this Province, and the potential for those people in our industries in this Province, they are gone all across this country and all the other provinces, and the young people, the educated people, are the ones we have to be most concerned about.

What we are seeing now with respect to the out-migration is the fact that some of the parents of these young people are following their children, because they are left home, all their family is gone to other provinces. Some of these people are the industry makers of the future. We have to find a way to get those people back.

We are falling behind the rest of Canada in job creation. If you listen to the government and the Minister of Finance when they get on their feet, they say we are leading the country in job creation, but the stats don't bear that out. In 1989, there was a gap of 8.3 percentage points between the unemployment rate of this Province and the national unemployment rate. That gap has widened to 8.6 percentage points in 1998, and widened further to 10.2 percentage points in the first month of this year. If, in fact, we are leading the country in job creation, God help the rest of the country, if that is the case. Our stats show differently.

If you are talking about the economy in this Province and the factors that one would look at to see how our economy is doing, we will know that the government and the spokespeople for the government are not being quite accurate in the figures they are throwing out to the people of the Province. They are giving this false sense of security to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that has to be addressed, and that is what I am doing here today.

We falling behind the rest of Canada in export trade, a very important factor to be considered. In 1989 exports accounted for 30 per cent of the GDP, and we are the leading export province in the nation relative to the GDP. By 1998 we were at 34 per cent of the GDP but all other provinces had gained much more. We had gained somewhat, but the other provinces had gained more. In actual fact, in reality, we are falling behind the rest of the country. Three provinces had vaulted ahead of us. Ontario's export trade went from 28 per cent to 52 per cent of the GDP, Saskatchewan went from 23 per cent to 41 per cent, and Quebec's went from 20 per cent to 38 per cent. Now here is the Province of Quebec doing better than us, when you look at the GDP of that province compared to this one, and that is the province that is trying to break up this country. We are still falling further behind than that province.

Even the other Atlantic Provinces far outpaced our rate of growth relative to the GDP. New Brunswick improved 8 percentage points, from 25 per cent to 33 per cent. Nova Scotia gained 12 points, from 16 per cent to 28 per cent. PEI, the smallest province in the country, I think geographically and population-wise, went from 14 per cent to 26 per cent. If you look at those figures, how can the ministers on the opposite side of the House of Assembly get on their feet and say we are leading the country in growth? It is not reality, I say to the Government House Leader. They are looking at the wrong figures. They are looking at them through rose-coloured glasses, I say to the Government House Leader. If he was sitting down and paying attention to what I was saying earlier, he would understand why I am making these statements.

Child poverty -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible), they are all Stats Canada figures, not ours.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are interpreting them wrong, I say to the Government House Leader.

Listen to this now. In 1989 exports accounted for 30 per cent of the GDP for this Province. We were the leading export province in the nation. That was in 1989 when you people took over, when the Liberals took over the Province, Mr. Speaker. By 1998 we were 34 per cent. We were up 4 per cent of the GDP in exports but other provinces had gained much more, I say to the Government House Leader. Ontario went from 28 per cent to 52 per cent. They went up 24 per cent and we went up 4 per cent. A big whoop. Saskatchewan went from 23 per cent to 41 per cent. They went up 18 per cent -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: You talk about statistics and then you are talk about that other thing, right? The truth of the matter is the gentleman just used the figure from 1989 and then compared that to Ontario. Now everybody in this Province knows we went through that groundfish moratorium. Everybody knows we went this way. If you look at what we have been saying and what Stats Canada is saying, all we are saying to you is that since 1995 we are picking up. The manufacturing is going up, and we do have the largest GDP growth in Canada this year. I mean, it is not our figures. He might not like it, but they are Statistics Canada's. For you to compare 1989 to 1999, you know there is a space of ten years in there. It is not even good stuff, Jack.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: There is none.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader just referred to the space of ten years there. Ten years being led by this Administration. In actual fact we are falling behind. We are not picking up at all, if you look at the real figures as I am pointing out here.

Another factor is this. Some years ago I think the federal government announced that we were going to have to end child poverty in the country by the year 2000. Is that correct, the end of child poverty? Listen to this now. Child poverty has declined in every other province since 1996 but continues to rise in this Province. The Canadian Council on Social Development reports that the percentage of children who live in poverty in this Province has risen from 18 per cent in 1989 to 23 per cent in 1997. That figure is even growing more in the past three years. What we are saying is the alarming growth in child poverty reflects the extent to which families and parents in this Province have fallen into poverty.

If you go across this Province you can see the dollar is not going as far as it used to go. Salaries and wages have been frozen for many years, even in the civil service. You can see people now, doing the same job, taking home less money in their cheques than they were taking home six and seven years ago because of the various taxes. The income tax has gone up, the insurances have gone up, and what have you. That is another factor.

We are the only province where the total personal income and total wages and salaries adjusted for inflation have been stagnant since 1992. Just what I was referring to. Well, almost. Another year or two it will be ten years. The salaries and wages in this Province are stagnant.

Here is a very important one. The Minister of Finance in the Estimates Committee meeting the other night referred to our own source revenues. If you look at it in reality, there has been little or no improvement in the provincial own source revenues as a result of the economic growth since 1990. What the Province is trying to say is growth. Growth in provincial own source revenues are due mostly, almost entirely, to increases in the personal income tax, which went up as I just referred to, the new payroll tax that during the last election and the previous election we were saying should be scrapped, that it should be phased out over a certain number of years. The government, the Minister of Health, the Premier and the Minister of Finance ridiculed our policy during the last election with respect to the payroll tax, but what happened? I will tell you now. What do we see in the Budget? They are now starting to phase back the payroll tax, a tax that should never have been implemented in the first place, a tax on jobs, a regressive tax, as I said.

I say to the President of Treasury Board that she got on her feet today when I asked here these questions, and obviously she has someone in her department taking care of her. Because she had little notes made there in her book to expect questions on these special warrants. Obviously they were concerned about it. They know full well they are abusing the special warrants. The Auditor General said that $95 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: She said $95 million out of $136 million was in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. I will take, Mr. Speaker, any day the facts and figures over the President of Treasury Board, I can guarantee you that. If she says that is in contravention of the Financial Administration Act, you can bet your bottom dollar that the abuse of the special warrants is in contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

The government, if they had any gumption, would stop abusing the special warrants. I will tell you what they are up to. If you take the last month of the year and they take $95 million and put it out in special warrants, and then they say they have a balanced budget for the year, in actual fact they really have a cash surplus. The most ironic thing about this is that last year on April 1, 1999 we passed through this House of Assembly - the Opposition opposed it, of course - legislation ordering the nurses back to work. The government was saying at the time that there was no money. They did not have any money but they did not tell the people of the Province, basically, that they were putting through $123 million in the month of March on special warrants.

Some of that money was not even spent and for some of it, it was four months or six months later before it was utilized. Where is the urgency? Under section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act, the government is required to only spend that money when it is urgent. Obviously government's definition of urgency is quite different than my definition of urgency when they can put money aside under special warrants to be used six months down the road.. That is not urgent.

We saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs on her feet today. She announced $1 million or $2 million, whatever it was, on an emergency situations, basically, for the repair of water and sewer caused by a major storm on the South Coast and what have you. I have to say that I would agree with that - right and proper. Now, if they had to have a special warrant for that, I could live with it, but to take $5 million and put in the Municipal Financial Corporation in March, and when July 31 rolls around, the special fund - $9 million still there - obviously there was no need for that special warrant in March other than to manipulate the bottom line of the Budget. That is what is going on, to show either a surplus or a deficit, depending on what you want to do. They could have $95 million as a surplus, but, no. This year they took out $100 and some-odd million to show a $34 million deficit; but if you look at -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Bang-o. Thrity million dollars in a contingency fund that they can use for whatever they want.

I would make a suggestion now, by the way, to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. That minister has something like $17 million this year, $16 million for road work in this Province - not nearly enough. I have to say that I sympathize with the minister, I really do. In actual reality, when you take out the cost of fuel, engineering fees, and all the work that goes with it, you have $12 million for actual road work. Now, we have $30 million as a contingency fund. Let's take some of that and put it into the road work for this Province so people can drive over the roads and be safe. We have one year; we have $30 million -

MR. TULK: Do you understand (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, let's do it this way. If it is $30 million, take out $2.5 million each month and you still have the remaining month proportionally kept back.

MR. TULK: Do you understand (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: I understand what a contingency fund is for this government, I say to the Government House Leader. A contingency fund is put aside in case of an emergency situation.

MR. TULK: Or something not foreseen.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not foreseen, okay, I agree with that, to a certain extent; but, at the end of the year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, if they want to do that and don't want to touch this $ 30 million until such a time that they get close to an election or something, and start trying to buy votes, what about the $136 million that they took out in special warrants this year? If they can come up with $136 million last year and roughly around the same figure the year before, let's take $50 million out in a special warrant for the roads, I say to the Government House Leader, and do something for a change in this Province and make the highways safe. I know down in my district alone I need $3 or $4 million for roads, easily, and that is right next to the capital city.

We have the Member for Baie Verte on his feet almost every day he is in the House of Assembly with petitions for roads out there in Baie Verte. We saw a demonstration out there yesterday and this past week with respect to the La Scie Highway, trying to get the point across to the government how bad they need this money, how bad they need the road work done. It is long overdue.

I am going to refer to a few other points with respect to this Budget and what is going on here. This is the last year for the HST transitional assistance grant from the federal government that injected $350 million into the government revenue since 1997. Now, $350 million, that is going to be gone. Whatever portion we had of that this year is going to be gone next year.

In the year 2002, the $850 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Roads for Rail Agreement is going to be ending a couple of years down the road. You can mark it down - I think today is April 13 - this Province is coming to a cash crunch with the Budget. I will tell you why. This Premier is only concerned about the immediate future with respect to his budgets, because he knows and everybody in this Province knows what his objectives are, to be out of here in a year or two, I say to the Government House Leader, to move back up along where he wants to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: To do what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, he is going to run for the federal government again, I would say.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, starting out. He has to get a seat first, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Tobin, the Premier of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about the Premier of this Province, the man who is supposed to be running this Province, and a bunch of lemmings that follow the first one over the cliff.

I have to make this comment. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was on here feet yesterday answering questions that I brought up yesterday concerning the sportsplex in Clarenville. She said the Member for Bonavista South gave a letter of support, so that is why they approved the $500,000.

I say to the minister: If the Member for Bonavista South wrote a letter to her and told her to jump over a cliff, would she jump over the cliff, I wonder? They only listen to us when it is convenient, and then they try to throw something back at us.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island who - don't let me tell the truth about that, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. Don't get me going on that one. I am going to be good to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island because we are teaming up on something else now, a major project for both districts. The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and myself are teaming up on another project. We had a meeting out in Portugal Cove not long ago concerning a very important project for the area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't want to quote what you just said to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island because I don't want it on record. I wouldn't want it to come against you down the road. He has relatives in my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. J. BYRNE: That member there. He has relatives in my district. They vote for me, I can guarantee you that.

MR. TULK: How did they manage to vote for you, if they live in his district?

MR. J. BYRNE: They live in my district. He has relatives living in my district, and they voted for me.

MR. TULK: Oh, I see.

MR. J. BYRNE: They had signs up, and my picture in their windows.

Government has already spent a $350 million payment it received in 1997-1998 from the federal government for taking over the Coastal Labrador ferry services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Three hundred and fifty million that is already gone. Now, that is $350 million over four years, so roughly $90 million a year. We won't have that money next year. Also, the former Liberal government cashed in our perpetual right to collect $8 million a year from Ottawa on Term 29 for $100 million; another $100 million spent that was supposed to be there for years to come, for eternity basically - gone. This is adding up. That is three fifty, eight-fifty - that is twelve - and another three fifty. That is $1.5 billion there. It is shocking, looking at the short-term rather than the long-term. The cash (inaudible) is coming, and who is going to be left to deal with it after the next election? We on this side of the House are going to be left to deal with it. We will be left to deal with this schemozzle that - let Hansard spell that one - that crowd over there is creating in the near future, in another two or three years down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What district does he represent? Carbonear-Harbour Grace, is it?

MR. TULK: How long were (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will live long enough, I expect, long enough to see that the Government House Leader will not be in that chair in the near future.

MR. TULK: Where will I be?

MR. J. BYRNE: You might be in a chair elsewhere, that he is striving for.

MR. TULK: Where?

MR. J. BYRNE: Up with your kissing cousins in Ottawa. Your name has been thrown around for that and you know it.

MR. TULK: For what?

MR. J. BYRNE: The big S.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can tell you one thing. If you have other plans, if you have plans to take over when the Premier leaves here in the near future, you can forget that.

MR. TULK: I'm not interested in that.

MR. J. BYRNE: You're not interested in that? I hope you're not, because you won't get it.

Forty-two million dollars this year from the federal government for health care that was supposed to be put over four years, a little less than $11 million a year, gone in a one-shot deal this year, and the Minister of Health says we are gambling with this money, that the federal government had better come forward with more money. I hope they do, because that is going to be another $42 million that we won't have next year.

Here is one of the kickers. The transfers from Ottawa will continue to decline in proportion to population decline. The Premier of this Province sat around the table in Ottawa when they changed the formula and did nothing to protect our rights, our interests, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal member, the member in Cabinet representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, did nothing to stop that formula from being changed. He is here now running the Province. I don't know where he is running it. I think he is running it into the ground, more like it, and he is looking to go back. Everybody knows he is looking to go back to Ottawa in a very short period of time, and I wish him well. I hope he gets back there so we can get someone in this Province, someone on this side of the House. Our Opposition Leader is going to be the next Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no doubt in my mind, no doubt whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen to this, now; this is where the truth comes out. We have an independent person looking at the books of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, with no fear of repercussion or anything like that, she comes out and says: The Auditor General drew attention to government's selective reporting of deficits in her report. In the 1989-1999 Budget government reported a surplus of just over $4 million, but the audited financial statements for that year called the Consolidated Summary Financial Statement indicate the real deficit was $163 million.

Why is that? It is because of this: She advised MHAs and others who are interested in the true financial position of the Province to refer to the Consolidated Summary Financial Statement which is an unprecedented and pointed warning from the Auditor General not to trust the Budget.

The reason for that, of course, is the different boards. We have the health care boards - I think there are ten of them or whatever - the school boards, the funding with respect to the municipalities and what have you. All, in actual fact, are factors in the Budget. We know they can have a cash surplus, and that was just spoken about a few minutes ago, so we have to be very conscious of what this government is all about.

I pretty well said enough for today. I think there are other people over here biting at the bit to get up and say a few words on the Budget.

Thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few minutes as we continue the debate with respect to the Concurrence Debate, as members on this side of the House make their comments in response to the overall budgetary process and react to some of the points that have been made in Budget 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to repeat some of the points that were made by my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis. The member indicated that we are the only Province to show a net loss of population. Of course, we have to keep in mind that it has been some 40,000 people that, since 1992, have left our shores. When you factor in the percentage, we are talking approximately 7 per cent of a loss of population in approximately the last eight years. That is evidenced, sadly enough, in the more rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All we have to do, whether we are a rural member or an urban member, is go to perhaps most of our smaller communities and see the ravages of depopulation. That is seen by examples such as closed schools and a reduction in services that are provided to the citizens of our communities. A depopulation of one's society is perhaps one of the saddest recognitions or saddest factors which, of course, is part and parcel of the reaction of any budgetary process. The question has to be asked: What can be done, and what can a budget do, in fact, to address the very serious problem of depopulation? Are the answers found, I say, when we review the various headings within the Budget? Are the answers found that may assist Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as they continue to live in our communities throughout the Province?

Again, 7 per cent of a population is a significant number, and of course we see most of our younger Newfoundlanders and Labradorians going to Western Canada in particular, in Alberta, to the cities of Calgary or Edmonton, or in the northern community of Fort McMurray. We see them going to mining towns in British Columbia, we see them going to large cities in Central Canada, and in some cases to the United States. It is a sad reality when such a significant percentage of our population must leave Newfoundland and Labrador in search of employment.

People in all walks of life repeat this particular fact on a daily basis. It is no big secret, but my guess is that 90 per cent of that 7 per cent is in fact the younger part of our population. Our young graduates, young families, young individuals and couples in our small communities with young children who seek a greater opportunity by leaving for points west. That is an unfortunate reality.

We can look at the example I've just mentioned, the community of Fort McMurray. There is no individual in this Province who doesn't have friends or family members who have left Newfoundland and moved to Western Canada. What happens when these young couples leave and have children of their own? These young children become immersed and entrenched in these communities and it is much more difficult for them to leave. Yes, it is true, we have some single individuals who will come back to Newfoundland and Labrador in search of work, in search of employment, but when young families and young couples leave, and these young couples have children of their own in other communities in this country, it is very difficult for them to again uproot and return to Newfoundland and Labrador. Because their children have become immersed in their own communities, their children are attending schools, they have their own friends, they have their own activities, they have a life of their own, and Newfoundland and Labrador becomes more and more remote in their own mindset.

I have used this example. For many young children who live in other communities outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, whose parents perhaps are native Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but for those children who were born in Calgary, Edmonton or Fort McMurray, Newfoundland to them is in many ways like England and Ireland to us. It is a place in history, it is a place of our past, it is a place where we know the songs, we know the music, we know the folklore. Other than their parents or their grandparents having been raised in Newfoundland and Labrador there is no real meaning, there is no real sense of identity, other than an historical one.

Therefore the question has to be asked: Are these young children going to return when they are older, when they are adults? Are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today going to move perhaps to the British Isles, go back to Ireland, where, in most cases, in terms of the vast majority of Newfoundlanders, our ancestors came from? The answer is no. Therefore the challenge to this government, and indeed the challenge to any government, is to provide a society in which the residents of the communities, by choice, want to live here and stay here, and want to work here and raise their families here. That is perhaps ultimately the greatest challenge of any government, to provide at least the opportunity to give its residents the option, and that is what is important. Not to say to the residents of this Province: You must stay here, but to provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the choice that should they wish to move they can. Obviously, we live in a free country, a free society. They are free to move and we are free, as individuals, to seek our employment opportunities or raise our families in other parts of this country, or indeed other parts of this continent or other parts of this world. If we want the option or the choice to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador, to stay in our communities, it is the challenge of this government - I would say it is the duty and the obligation of this government - to provide the climate and the jurisdiction in which we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, may exercise that option and exercise that choice.

That to me is the sign of a government that is working, it is the sign of a government that is doing its job. Ultimately it is the test, I would say, upon which a government is based and judged. Sadly, if we use that as the test and if we use that as the gauge upon which a government is judged or assessed, we can reach only one conclusion when we judge, evaluate and assess this government. Our conclusion must be that this government has failed in its mandate to young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who, if given a choice and an option, want to stay here and want to stay in their home communities, and want to stay in those communities in which they were raised, where their parents are, where their friends are. That is the test, I would say, and again, if this government was judged and assessed using that litmus test, we would see a government that has failed in its obligation and its mandate to its very own people. Because sadly we have too many of our people who leave, not by choice, but are forced to leave their home communities in search of employment, in search of putting bread and butter on the table, so that their families can be fed and adequately protected.

Just the other day I spoke with a young student who graduated after a business degree at Memorial University, a four- or five-year course in the business faculty, who very much wanted to stay here. Because of the student debt this person is now being saddled with, in the amount of some $30,000 or $35,000 - which is low, I would say, compared to many individuals and many young students who have been forced, in pursuit of post-secondary education, to apply for and receive student aid. Compared with many, $30,000 or $35,000 is low. We have all heard stories of students owing $45,000 and $50,000, but this particular student, owing some $30,000 or $35,000, did not want to have that noose around his neck for the rest of his life and realized that if that person was interested in paying down that debt relatively quickly, that person had no choice in terms of whether he should stay in this Province. That person had to leave Newfoundland in search of employment in points west to try to receive an adequate income that would allow that person to pay down the debt more quickly than if he was to stay here.

That, again, I say is a sad reality. That is a sad state of affairs when a young person who wants to contribute to this society, to contribute to this economy and be a meaningful contributor to Newfoundland and Labrador, a place that he loves, grew up in, had no choice, no option, but to go to Western Canada, find a job in his area, and pay down a $30,000 to $35,000 debt. What will happen with that young person? That young person who is filled with energy, filled with the will to get out there in the workplace and really be a meaningful contributor to society, what will happen with that young person? In all likelihood, because of the work ethic that is within that person anyway, because of the fact that person has been well-trained and educated in our own University in Newfoundland and Labrador, that person will go to another part of this country, exhibit great work habits, exhibit a great ability to be a meaningful contributor to the workplace, and that person will be welcomed in whatever workplace that person finds himself in. My guess is, that particular individual will remain there. He will contribute to the workplace and the community where he will go. He will pay off that student debt much more quickly than if he were to stay here, and the likelihood of that person returning is not great, I say.

That is what is unfortunate about the state of affairs that exist in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Our young people are not given the option or the choice to stay in the community in which they want to stay, to stay in the Province in which they want to stay and raise their families. They are forced to leave, to deal with their own particular and personal economic and fiscal reality.

I say once again, the onus is on not only this government but I would suggest any government to turn that whole sad state of affairs around so that a person - whether it be a graduate, a young family, a young family with children - have the opportunity to stay within a vibrant economy within their own native province, with their own families, with their own friends, and live the lives that they want to lead on their native shores. That is the challenge of this government. When we use that as the litmus test, this government has failed miserably because we continue to see our young people leaving.

The first statistic that was mentioned by my friend here, my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, was that since 1992 we have lost 40,000 people, about 7 per cent of our population. It is a sad testimony of failure. It seems to me that this government has not recognized its failure. Once again, we see our young people having no choice but to leave the land which they love so much and where they want to stay.

That perhaps, in my view, is the ultimate test of where we are going as a society. Until that reverses, and until our young people by choice can stay, and until we see - and maybe we will see some of our young people return in significant numbers. Until that happens, we have nothing but shame to say to the members on the opposite side, shame to the Budget which was handed down on March 22, just approximately a month ago. Until that situation reverses, we must stand here and, as members of the Opposition, continue to hammer on these points and continue to remind members opposite of their obligation and of their duty and of their responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the Budget that was presented here, I believe, on March 22. It is very interesting to sit here today and listen to two of the former speakers talk about the number of people that have left our Province and gone away.

I can only agree with my two colleagues that, to me, it is a shame. It is a disgrace that we have people who have had to move to Western Canada to seek employment. I am sure that probably yourself and many others in this House - I don't know, since being elected in 1996, how many letters I have written so that students who are buried in debt could apply for some debt relief from the various banks. Some of these people are being driven crazy by bill collectors. They have no mercy and they certainly show no mercy. When a Newfoundlander and Labradorian is unable to find work, how do we expect that individual, either he or she, to come up money to pay off student loans? I have watched it for years and years.

I will always remember the day that a lady came to visit me in my office, a single mother, who has twin boys, and this lady was actually being hounded by debt collectors trying to collect student loans; a lady who could not find work; a lady who, when she did find work, was paid at the minimum wage, and I do believe in her case worked hours here and hours there but was barely existing on what she was making, to survive, to pay her rent, and to support her two children. This lady was being driven crazy by debt collectors from the bank where she had her student loan. She asked me what I thought she should do. I have too much respect for this hon. House to say exactly what I told her to do with the bill collectors the next time they continued to call and harass her. I told her to tell them that she would give them $5 a month, and told her that if they were not happy with that to take her to court. If they took her to court, I told her to take her little twin boys into court with her, sit them down and look at the judge and say: Your Honour, this is all that I can afford to pay to these bill collectors who, as I said earlier, were driving this lady crazy. They were phoning her at work, they were phoning her at home, and it got to a point where nobody was actually trying to collect money but in actual fact was harassment. It was nothing short of harassment.

I thought it was ridiculous that a young lady who was working to try and survive, who did not want to go on the social services system in our Province, was doing her utmost to feed her two little boys and to pay her rent.... At the end of the day she was fortunate enough, I think, to reach some kind of conclusion, but every day, day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, this lady was receiving phone calls, as I said, at home and at work. There was no let up. They were constantly harassing this lady. Why? Because we in this Legislature, and particularly this government, have not provided a basis for any form of debt relief, number one, for a student in our Province; and even when they are graduating from a technical college or university or trade school, there is no employment for these people to go to in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I had calls only a couple of nights ago from a gentleman who has two of his sons living in Alberta, asking me if there was somewhere I knew where his two sons might find employment in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to which I had to tell him: No, I am sorry, I couldn't.

That is a man who wanted to move his family back here because, as my colleague from St. John's East said earlier, the day will come when they will move into these provinces, they will be married, they will start families of their own, and once they get entrenched in a certain area of our country they are not coming back to this Province any more. So, what are we doing to keep these young people who have graduated from our technical colleges in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely nothing.

I listened to my colleagues in this House, the Member for Bonavista South and the Member for Baie Verte, repeatedly, in the last couple of weeks, stand in this House and present petition after petition for paved roads which school children travel over, to have these roads upgraded to a suitable conclusion. We have watched very decent people, very quiet people in this Province, have to take to the street and bar off roads. Why? As my colleague from Cape St. Francis said, we have $30 million in a reserve fund. For what? For whose benefit? Is it a slush fund that somebody in the government decides they are going to use? Is that what it is for? If it is, then let's tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that is what it is for; but why not take some of that $30 million and spend it on the roads in this Province where we have a need? We have a need in Baie Verte and we have a need in Bonavista South, and I am sure members on the government side have needs in their own communities. Why haven't we taken this money and done something with it to improve our own situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is it such a big deal to be able to say we have $30 million in a reserve fund? Thirty million dollars for what? Thirty million dollars that we can spend? Who are we reserving it for and what are we reserving it for? At the end of my question, there is no suitable answer that we can be given.

I listened to my colleague earlier today talk about the issuing of special warrants in this hon. House. The Auditor General of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador points out that $95 million was allocated and spent improperly. It was outside the guidelines of the act. Why does this government permit these things to be allowed to happen? Why do we permit to let these things go on and on? For that, there is no answer.

Again, we look at our hospitals. Our minister says: Well, hopefully, hopefully, we are going to get some more money from Ottawa. A very interesting phone call I had today from a man who has a son who lives in the Province of Quebec, who told me that his son needed 6,000 hours of work in that community now to apply for a full-time job.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. FRENCH: He needed 6,000 hours of employment in the Province of Quebec to seek full-time employment.

MR. TULK: Six thousand hours?

MR. FRENCH: Six thousand hours, yes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That's right and that is what he needs. If the Government House Leader doesn't believe me, I will give him the gentleman's name and later on today he can phone him.

MR. TULK: No, no, I don't disbelieve you. You're saying that is a rule in Quebec?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, his son needs 6,000 hours, a man who has gone there, bought a house, and who is now raising his family in the Province of Quebec. He needs 6,000 hours.

MR. TULK: In order to what?

MR. FRENCH: In order to now go to work full-time in the Province of Quebec. That is what the gentleman -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, he told me this morning on the phone. As a matter of fact, there is such a law because a few years ago, in dealing with the Province of Ontario, Mike Harris said: Two can play that game. If you want to do that in Quebec, we will do it in Ontario.

I don't know what the conclusion was, but they tell me a conclusion was reached.

MR. TULK: Well, after that, everybody will do the same thing.

MR. FRENCH: Well, you know, maybe we should be doing that. We have a group in Ottawa, a bunch of separatists who want to destroy our country and who are now running the Province of Quebec. It is about time that we dealt with this in a very open and a very forthright manner.

When this gentleman called me this morning, it blew me away when he told me that his son was there and this is what he was told he had to have; a young fellow who bought a house and is raising a family in the Province of Quebec. How much protection are they looking for, or should we be looking for the same protection in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? I shudder to think and I shudder to wonder what will happen if we go to develop the Lower Churchill. How much of this will be enacted? How much of this will they try to force down the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? I hope there is enough guts and enough gumption over there to stand up and say: No, we don't want this. We don't support this and we are not signing a deal while these fellows are going to receive these benefits. It is unfair to the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I was going to talk about earlier, our hospitals; when we see people who go into hospitals, I listen to my colleague from Ferryland day in and day out raise questions to the Minister of Health and Community Services, never to receive any answers, always a great spin to be put on it, but why? Why do we have to do that? Why can't we look into our health care? Why can't we find out what's going on?

I touched a few days ago on the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission in this Province. They have raised the price of over 500 brands of spirits in our Province. No tax increase. Who are we kidding here? Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been asked to raise an extra $80 million. Who are we kidding, when I spoke to somebody in very high authority at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who told me that if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wants $80 million, the only place Hydro can get it is to borrow it. They don't have the money to pay an extra $80 million to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So what does it mean? Does it mean increased electricity rates? Is that what we are going to do? No taxes. You can call it what you like. You can disguise it as much as you want. You can cover it up with paper and throw it on the shelf and leave it, but at the end of the day, if there is an extra $80 million to come from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it will have to come from us, the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That to me is nothing short of ridiculous. Why didn't we tell the people of this Province the truth? If that is what we are going to force Hydro to do, then why didn't we tell the truth? Why didn't we say to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro: We expect you to raise the $80 million, and the only way you are going to raise it is through a tax increase?

I listened yesterday to my colleague for Windsor-Springdale talking about people in his district who are in urgent need of home repair. I'm sure there is not a member in this House who hasn't had a similar circumstance, but when I heard the gentleman say that one man, in his district, who had a heart attack was told: Get up and fix your own roof, well, how much nonsense do these people in our Province have to be told? How much nonsense do they have to put up with?

There comes a point in time when an emergency is an emergency is an emergency. We can't just say to people any more: Go away, go lie down in a corner, when there are buckets all throughout their house to catch the rain that is coming in during a snow storm. This to me is nothing short of ridiculous, and something should be done by this government. Something should be done to make sure that we eliminate those types of homes in the Province. We are up day in and day out asking questions, but of course we are not receiving any answers.

There is nothing laid on the table which says: Here is what we are going to do to eliminate this problem or that problem or some other problem. I think the student issue is a big one. It begs to be addressed. What do we say to our young people who are finishing university or trade school, who are coming out owing $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000, some of them? Because some of them are not fortunate enough to have parents who can help them pay their way through university. Any student who is in university today whose parents can afford that is extremely lucky.

I had a daughter who went to university here until she couldn't get any more courses, and then she was forced to go to the mainland. At that particular time her mother and I were fortunate enough to be able to help her out, and she graduated from a university in Nova Scotia. I often think about some of the girls who I know who were with her. I think of a good friend of mine who became a good friend of my daughter and who now lives in Calgary. She lives in Calgary for one reason and one reason only: Because she can't get a job in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to help pay off her student debt. Her student debt is tremendous, because she wasn't fortunate enough to have somebody who could pay her way to go to university. She was a very bright young lady who won some scholarships and she used those to offset her time in university. Again, I have to ask: What are we doing with these people? Where are we going? What are we doing to help them out? I have to say: Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, on those notes, I thank you very much for your time this evening, and I will concede to my colleague for Windsor-Springdale.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just going to start off today and finish what I was saying the other day when I was referring to a small sawmill operator in my district who was having trouble finding a wood supply to keep his mine going, and also to keep going a little manufacturing plant that he has making core boxes for the mining industry, of which he is doing a great job. It has proven to be a good product which his customers are very pleased with. This business might be jeopardized because of the lack of resource that's been allocated to this operator.

Over the past year I have working with this gentleman trying to find a way to secure a supply for him, and working with the minister. I realize, and I think most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians realize, that the wood supply in Newfoundland right now is certainly not as plentiful as what we would like to be. There is a short-term problem when it comes to the amount of supply in the Province today, because the wood supply is starting to replenish. Over the next ten or fifteen years we could see, depending on the area of the Province that you are talking about, some are ten years, some are fifteen years. It depends on how long ago it was cut.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: In fifteen years we will have a great wood supply. In ten years we will have probably an adequate wood supply, particularly in Central Newfoundland, where the forest was cut about thirty years ago and is now growing up. Within the next ten years this wood would be ready to be cut again. It certainly would be a great asset to job creation in Central Newfoundland. Hopefully our paper mills will be still there to harvest this supply.

Plus, the small sawmill operators need a fair chance at getting a wood supply too. I see it firsthand when there are areas of the Province where the wood supply is overaged. It is aged tree wood. The government says this wood is in their inventory and it should not be in that inventory. This wood should be cut -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. HUNTER: I say to the hon. minister that this wood, because of its age, will certainly blow down, die and be no good to anybody. This wood should be classified in a special category where small sawmill operators can go in and cut this wood and use it for the benefit of their businesses. I can show the minister, if he wants to see, areas where because the paper companies said: This wood is inaccessible and not viable for them to cut, so they will say: We will leave this wood there. This wood will blow down, will be infested, and be no good to anybody.

I think if some of these small operators want to go into these areas and cut up this wood to make a living at it that we have to do everything possible to do that. Because some of these areas with small amounts of wood in certain blocks - some of the bigger companies do not want to cut it. They will leave it there and this wood will be no good to anybody.

I have a gentleman in Springdale, Mr. Baxter Butt, who identified some of these areas, went to the department and said: Can I cut this wood? The department said: No, you cannot cut this wood because we are going to let this wood stay because it is not acceptable. It is not viable for the bigger companies to cut, but some day we may want to do something with it.

We cannot wait for "some day." This wood has to be made available now to these small operators, because if they are going to survive in their industry, then we have to do everything possible to give them a fair chance. Even though it may not be viable for some of the bigger companies, it certainly would be viable for the small companies which do not have to deal with high wages and high cost of operations.

I am hoping the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and the minister would look into this situation and try to help some of these small operators to avail of this resource that is in blocks scattered throughout the Province, and give them a chance to try to make a living in their prospective industry.

There is another area yesterday where it certainly interests me and that is with our environment, particularly when it comes to the stewardship of our wildlife habitat and conservation. I'm proud to stand here today and tell this hon. House of the work that has been done by our Corduroy Brook Enhancement Association in Grand Falls-Windsor, particularly pertaining to their walking trail and the adjacent wildlife habitat to that trail. They have done a wonderful job in enhancing the wildlife habitat there and working with Ducks Unlimited and other organizations to make this wildlife habitat accessible by the public but also giving the wildlife first priority over using this habitat. It is such a beautiful job they have done there. I certainly encourage anybody who comes into Central Newfoundland to have a walk on our trail and look at the beautiful job they have done, and look at the wildlife that is there in this area. It is certainly something to be proud of.

I got a call today from a lady who is doing a course in a post-secondary education field and she was so upset because of the debt load that she has. She doesn't know how she is going to pay this money back to the student aid program. She has three children. She is living with three children, paying rent, and cannot find a job. With this debt load that she has, she doesn't know what to be doing. She is so frustrated and disappointed because she was encouraged to get this extra training, encouraged to get an education, but now who is helping her to fix this problem with that debt load? I don't see any other alternative for this lady but to move. It is so sad that this lady has to take her three children, uproot them from a rural community in our Province where there are not a lot of opportunities. There are not many choices for single parents, with their children, to try and make a living and try to sustain their living so that they can stay in their own communities, bring their children up in an environment in which they have been brought up, and which they want for their own children. So, they are going to be forced to uproot and move to the mainland to find work so that they can provide a living for their children and also pay back this debt load that they have which is certainly hard on them. I sympathize with these people.

Also, now we have another problem that is arising in rural Newfoundland, particularly in one community in my district, with the decrease in the crab quotas. A 30 per cent reduction is going to make a big difference to a lot of people in small communities in Newfoundland that depend on the fish plants in that area, particularly in the Town of Triton in my district where about 400 people work in that plant on a seasonal basis. I would say that 30 per cent, probably 40 per cent, of the people of that town, in that business this year, will not qualify for EI. I think there is going to be a lot hardship on these families. It is going to be hard for them to find work to help them get enough hours to qualify for their EI. These people, this year, are going to have to depend on government programs, make-work programs to make up the hours they need to qualify for their EI.

I think we are going to have a great challenge on our hands this year in trying to help these families and these people, some of whom are single parents trying to sustain a proper living and sustain a proper environment for their children and families. I can see that problem arising this year. I hope that something can be done on the provincial aspect to create more job creation programs in the smaller rural communities of Newfoundland so these extra hours can be made up and give these people a chance to qualify for their EI.

I will end off at that. There are other things I would like to say, but I will get up again later.

Thank you very much. I will pass that to my colleague.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to again debate the Budget. Of course, in standing and debating the Budget, I certainly cannot go past education.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) up in the gallery.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, the fan club, I might add, a very good fan club.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Not too bad. I am counting up there now. There you go.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, strangers. They admitted strangers into the gallery. I don't know these people, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: All supporters.

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly would point to the gallery. These are parents from Bishop O'Neill Collegiate in Brigus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Just two nights ago the board decided, in their lack of wisdom I might add, to close down this particular school. Of course it is near and dear to my heart as well, as the minister probably realizes, because that was indeed a school at which I spent twenty years. The school itself has been in operation since 1973. Many of these people in the gallery, I would say to you, attended that school, and their children now attend that school as well.

I will get back to the vote the other night. The other night, of course, there was a gathering of, I would say, more than a couple of hundred people in Ascension Collegiate. It was at that time, after exhausting all means - and these parents worked very, very hard to convince the board not necessarily to keep it open in its present state but to convince the board to allow, at least in that part of the zone, a K-IX system. The two buildings were there. It appeared, through all of their presentations - and I say to you, you couldn't believe the presentations that were given by not only these people in the gallery today but many parents as they stood before this board and certainly gave a good account of why this particular school should stay open; and it wasn't to stay open forever. It was to stay open as a transition into the larger system.

I will get back to the vote the other night. I must say, I attended the vote and it was disheartening to stand with these parents on that particular night and see a board of trustees - first of all, the first thing that I saw was two trustees had to get up from that table, had to get up and leave the gymnasium. Two trustees from our particular zone had to leave. They were asked to leave by the board because they were declared, would you believe, in a conflict of interest.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) legislation to straighten that out?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, the conflict of interest that was straightened out was only to do with the trustees who had children in the schools; but in this particular case both of these conflicts of interest dealt with having relatives working in the schools. As a matter of fact, when it came to Bishop O'Neill Collegiate there was no conflict of interest. These two trustees, I felt bad for them. I felt bad that these trustees, whom people had elected - they had elected them to stand up for the people of our particular zone. In our particular zone - I say our particular zone because that is where I live - there were four trustees who were elected to represent our particular zone, this particular zone, and two of them could not vote as a result of being in a conflict of interest.

Once that business was taken care of, then came the next fiasco which dealt with twelve trustees left. These twelve trustees then decided, not all of them - but then it came up concerning a secret vote, in front of hundreds of parents who were very emotionally charged because this was a very important issue with regard to their children. You cannot believe that these trustees, knowing how important it was for these people to understand how their elected trustees were voting, they voted to go, once again, to a secret vote. It was disheartening. It is bad enough to have a decision -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. It is bad enough to have to take the closing of a school, but to not know how these people voted. This follows through from the original motion to the amended motion, to the appeal motion, all of these, always under the secrecy of a secret vote.

I tell you, I must take my hat off to the parents who were there that night because, I'm telling you, they felt like reacting in a most violent manner, but they controlled themselves. They showed more poise, I would say, than the trustees did themselves.

Just to get back again to that particular night, the secret vote was then agreed upon. One of the trustees then asked that the count - they wouldn't know who voted, but at least they would have a count as to how many trustees were in favor of the motion, how many trustees were against the motion. Would you believe that that was voted on, and the count would not be released to the public? Again, these parents, who were up front all the way through in putting forth what they felt was important for the education of their children, would again be denied that little bit of information. The vote was taken. Would you believe that conveniently this board had a hired accountant sitting at the end of the table? A hired accountant, because he never came in and did it for nothing. They had someone hired as an accountant to count the votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a waste of money.

MR. HEDDERSON: It was a waste of money, because I certainly would have counted the votes for them. I'm sure any one of the 500 parents there would only have been too glad to count the votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some special needs child (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Absolutely. This chartered accountant took the votes -

MR. SULLIVAN: What was it? The Academy Awards or something.

MR. HEDDERSON: I don't know. It was a sealed envelope. These votes were taken. This is how ridiculous it seems. That they would have to hire a chartered accountant to be on hold in case - and I say in case - they needed a secret vote.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why didn't they let the two they wouldn't let vote count them?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, exactly. You had two trustees. That, I say to my colleague, makes all the sense in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too much sense.

MR. HEDDERSON: Right, too much sense. I might add that when we look at this whole situation, here you have a board that is representing the interest of the children of this particular part of the Province. It is disgusting.

To get back to it, the chartered accountant went around, took all the votes, brought them back and he counted them. Nobody else saw these votes except this chartered accountant. No witnesses, no scrutineers. That is common in every elected assembly that I know of, it is there. In this particular case, no. Can you imagine? We are not in a little room. We are in a large auditorium with hundreds of parents there, sitting on the edge of their seats wondering how the vote was going to go. This one gentleman takes them, counts them, goes over, signs the paper, passes the results into the Chair, and it is announced. It is announced that the appeal is denied. You could see on the faces of these parents the absolute disbelief. They had worked very hard in putting forth to this board the difficulties of closing out Bishop O'Neill Collegiate and moving the students into what would then become a regional high school, and the difficulties that they had in accepting that in the other three parts of the zone they were given a K to IX system. Would you believe that with two buildings, over 1,000 students in this part of the zone, they gave a K to VI? It is absolutely unreal. It is unheard of, and it is not over yet. These parents are not giving up, and it is not to save the school; it is to save the education of their children.

Next year the high school students will be going into a facility that is geared to 750 to 800 students. There will be 920 students at least in that school. The parents asked: Can you allow a more even transition? Can you put an extension on that building to make sure the students can be accommodated? They were turned down flat. There are two buildings there. They asked that there be a transition to make sure the K to IX system stayed in that part of the zone. They were turned down flat

So I say to you that if this is what educational reform is, there is something drastically wrong. There is something drastically wrong when you have an area in that zone whereby you have 1,000 students, you have two buildings, and yet you have to take those students from that area and bus them further down the road to avail of services that you already have. There is something wrong.

The second Williams report has come out.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are all the recommendations in the first one (inaudible)?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, they are cut back. There are only eight-six recommendations in this one compared to over 200 in the last one but -

MR. SULLIVAN: Were the first 200 all implemented?

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Were they all implemented?

MR. HEDDERSON: They were all implemented, yes, implemented in someone's mind.

When I look through this new report, would you believe there is an attempt made here then to support smaller schools? There is an attempt here with allocations. As a matter of fact, if you applied these allocations to Bishop O'Neill Collegiate, either for the high school as it is now or for a feeder school, you would have a student-teacher ratio that would be fantastic. Yet we are told that by moving them down the road we are going to get better programming; that the bigger the school now, the better the programming. This report clearly indicates that regardless of the size of your school, you will be able to offer an adequate program for all the students there.

It is totally unreal what is happening with regard to educational reform. One of the biggest disappointments is that if the 1992 report had been followed, and if they had gotten beyond simply closing down schools and got into the classrooms, which they are claiming they are going to do now, I would say we would be in a much better state regarding education today. The education reform has not happened. We are into restructuring even as I speak. Because I would not be on my feet today unless there was restructuring still going on in the Province. So we have not moved beyond that and it has not stopped. There will be continued restructuring as time moves along.

This Budget certainly did not support this school community of Bishop O'Neill Collegiate. It did not support it, and again I say to you it is not a matter, in this case, of simply saving a school. It is saving educational programming and opportunities for the entire zone within this particular board, and it has not happened. These parents now are into a situation where they do not know where to turn because, you see, there does not seem to be any accountability when it comes to board decisions. There is no accountability. There is no auditor going in. They are talking about auditors going out into the schools. Again, the word that we always get back is: They are elected representatives, they are volunteers. We acknowledge that. I tell you that the trustees in this Province, for the most part, are trying their best, but there are times when they misread a situation. There are times when, as the minister stood in her place the other day, people make mistakes. I say to you that there is no accountability for a board that undertakes the lives of these children with regard to education when they can sit down in a secret vote and decide. There is no accountability there.

The parents, even to this day, do not know who of those twelve people voted for them or who voted against them, and that is terrible. There are elections coming up in school boards, I know, but there should be something in place where these parents can turn now and have the whole thing looked at. Because you see, there was an appeal but again, in my experience, how can you appeal to the same people? This board made the decision and then went through the motions of having an appeal, but they are the same people. Somebody or some body - and I turn to the Minister of Education - has to make sure that the decisions of the board are looked at in an objective manner; but to simply go back to the board and say: Okay, we made this decision. Now we are going to line up all the parents for a couple of nights, hours and hours of presentation, we are going to listen to them, but we're the same people.

How can you look at it in a fresh light? They made the decision and it seems like, once the decision is made, the appeal stays. Again, the accountability has to be there and it is not there. In this particular case it is a crime. I say it is a crime because the education in this particular part of the zone is not on par with the other part. The children now who are involved in the system will have to go through two schools to get through high school, whereas the rest of the children in the zone have to go through one school to get to high school.

These schools are community based, they are in areas, and yet the parents, especially from Marysvale to the North River area have to go through two schools in order to get to high school. Again, it is not fair. It is simply not fair. It is not that they had to put new facilities there. It is not that they had to do renovations. All they had to do, I say to you, is keep Bishop O'Neill Collegiate open for another year or two until the numbers allow for an easier transition.

I say to you that next September, if indeed this decision stands, that the children now in Bishop O'Neill Collegiate and in All Hallows will be on the move. Again, it is not fair. It is simply not fair. They have not been treated in the same manner as other schools have been in the same zone of the district.

The sad thing again, I say to you, is that the parents now have really nowhere to turn. Today, they came in to see the Minister of Education, they had a meeting with some of the officials - I believe the minister is ill today. They came away from there and do you know the line that they came away with? That in order for them to get satisfaction they now have to go to the courts. They have to bring it to the courts. I say to you, can you imagine the expense that this small school community would have to incur in order to get it to the courts? That is not to say they won't; because, I tell you, they are a hardy group, a vocal group, and they are not one to lay down.

Three years ago the doors to that school were closed and they were reopened. There is still hope - that this school community has - that the board will see the error of their ways and address this particular issue and take care of this injustice that has been imposed upon these people.

I say to you, it is very, very important, when we look at educational reform, that every effort is made to involve the parents. I tell you, these parents feel very much outside the system on this particular occasion.

In conclusion, I certainly would -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're concluding?

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, maybe I'll keep going.

In conclusion, certainly when I am on my feet in this hon. House, I would be remiss if I didn't indicate what a wonderful success Bishop O'Neill Collegiate has been over the past twenty-seven years.

In looking at their success, I would have to say to you that they would rest on their success, the scholarships, the graduates. Over the years there have been 3,000-plus graduates come out of that school. They now take a very prominent part in the economy, in the job markets in this particular Province. Many of them are doctors, lawyers, teachers, labourers, electricians, plumbers, and you could go right down the line. In just about any part of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador you will find where these students from Bishop O'Neill Collegiate have gone on to be very, very productive members of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In closing, I would like to register that the demise of this particular school certainly will have a dramatic effect, not only short term but long term. Again, I wish the parents luck in continuing to petition to have the changes put in that they have requested.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

First of all, I want to put in context comments that were just made by my colleague, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. Last fall, we were in this House debating a piece of legislation dealing with conflict of interest relative to school boards. The conflict of interest came about because certain members who were duly elected were, I guess, prohibited by some school boards from participating and voting on board decisions.

Mr. Speaker, there were several judgements made in court that said that the legislation needed clarification. So, last fall we clarified that. Therefore, we do not have school boards now saying that because you have a child attending a school, the parent is in a conflict of interest. Prior to that, parents could only run in school boards if they did not have any children in the school system, which was rather stunned and kind of a silly thing to do; because in Newfoundland and Labrador we want to get people involved in our communities who have some interest in promoting that community. Likewise, we want to get people involved in our school system who have a day-by-day interest in promoting the educational system.

So, we had an amendment put forward that said that if you were a parent and your children were going to a particular school, that the school board officials could not rule you out of order. They could not say to you: Now your child is going to this school we are going to talk about teacher allocation for that school or we are going to talk about these issues of budgetary matters for that school, and therefore you have to go and, say, move out of the room. You have to be told that you cannot participate because your child is going there.

During that particular debate - and I did the research on this side of the House on this matter - we also talked about the fact that the Minister of Education would address in this spring session the issues surrounding the voting procedures. We know that the Minister of Education at that time said: We know what you are saying is right, but we want to consult with the school boards so we can bring back a piece of legislation that says that school board members have to stand up for what they believe in but they also have to been seen to do it in a public manner.

In the municipalities of this Province we have a rule that says that when the votes are held you have to do it in a public place, you have to do it in a public manner. You can say aye or nay, you can raise you hand, you can stand up if you want to when a vote is called, but you have to do it in a public manner. That is what democracy is all about.

In essence, we have in this Province today, a system in the educational system with our school boards whereby we elect them but then we say to them: You do not have to tell the public how you vote. That is silly. That is anti-democratic. It is against everything that we believe in. You associate that kind of way of doing things with some of the banana republics or some of the societies that we do not have good words for at any time; but in Newfoundland and Labrador we still have a system whereby an elected school board member can hear all of the comments and then someone can say: I am afraid to let my neighbors know how I am voting, so I want to move a motion that we have a secret ballot. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Last fall in this House when I brought this matter forward and we had amendments put to the legislation, they weren't particularly on the section but we asked to have them dealt with anyway. The Minister of Education stood in her place and she said: You are right, in the spring we are going to have a look at that, because that is the direction we want to go in.

Mr. Speaker, today we have distributed here a number of pieces of legislation, probably up to twenty pieces of legislation. This is not a great amendment. It would be important at the school district level, but we on this side are calling for democracy to prevail at the school board level. It is not there now.

When you can go out and you can campaign for an election, you say: I want you to come out and vote for me - and that is a secret ballot. We believe in that. Then they run. Fundamental to democracy, fundamental to the operation of school boards, is that not only does the school board member have a responsibility to vote, but it is also a responsibility to see that vote is done in a public place and in a public manner.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

Just to ask maybe this question, and he can continue on in his commentary, because he is so impassioned about the issue. It would follow logically then that he would support the position that every single vote in this Legislature should be recorded. Because he does understand, I believe - he has been here a long time - that 99 per cent of the votes in this Legislature are never recorded. Even though we are elected as representatives of the Province, nobody knows, except in very rare instances, how we vote on pieces of legislation that come before this House, dozens at a time. Nobody knows whether you voted for it or against it unless somebody asked for a particular recording of the vote, and it is then written with names attached. So is he suggesting also we should alter our own rules of order? If he believes so strongly in that principle, that every single thing that is voted on in this Legislature should be done by a name called vote?

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if this was not such a serious issue I would take the minister's interjection as a serious interjection. The minister knows that when these galleries are all open, this is a public assembly. It is called the House of Assembly; it is a public forum. When the votes are taken, anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador who wants to know has a right to come here to witness the vote being called. When a vote is called the Chair will say: All those in favour say ‘aye,' and the ayes will say ‘aye'. The nays will say ‘nay'. It is a public place.

All I am saying is that, at the school board level, do the same thing. Have a case where the chair of the school board will say: All those in favour of the motion say ‘aye,' raise your hand, stand up. Do it in a public manner, being either audible or visible in your vote. Therefore, when you say ‘nay' you either say ‘nay' visibly with your hand or stand or say ‘nay,' be verbal. Now you can have it either visual or audible and we can give you pictures if you want them.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is that we want the same rules to apply in the school boards as apply in the town council meetings. If you are going to a city council, not on every vote is there someone sitting down and saying: Jack voted this way and Mary voted this way and Tom voted that way. If there comes a situation where there is a matter arising - and I had it many times in my sixteen years in the chair, where we had very close votes. The chair automatically watches that, as the Chair here would today, to see if there is any kind of an evenness in the vote. If he seeks clarification, or if the chair is uncertain, the chair will say: Would you please show me either by standing or by raising your hand?

What the minister is suggesting is ludicrous. What the minister is doing here is putting up a very weak - I give the minister credit, because most often he is a lot stronger in his defense of government than that. He certainly -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I did not make the interjection to defend anything. I was asking a question as to how far he believes the principles should extend, and I have heard the answer.

The point of order is this. Every single member in this Legislature - because we are debating the issue that was raised earlier by the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne - particularly the member now speaking, supported the notion that nobody in this Legislature should have anything to do with the closure of a school, the opening of a school, the arrangement and order of which schools will be opened and which wouldn't. That should be left to the elected school boards. We debated it specifically, and every single soul here agreed that is an issue that should be left to the school boards. The old act used to say that you couldn't close a school without the permission of the minister. Therefore there was a role for the minister. This Legislature, with the member now speaking, agreed 100 per cent that there should be no role for the minister, and that school closures, openings and arrangements of grades were best made by the local school boards because they knew the issue best. If someone has a disagreement, it is not with anybody in this Legislature, it is back with the school board.

I agree there is a issue as to whether or not the vote itself should be more public, but every single decision of a school board, by law, is recorded in a public meeting. Whether the vote is held in a public meeting or not, or whether it is a show of hands or a secret ballot, the decision is held in a public meeting. Everybody here agrees that nobody here should have anything to say about it because the school board knows better than we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has made some interesting points, but there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that makes thirty-nine points of order that member has raised. He has lost all thirty-nine. Even the minister will get a hit after a while.

The point is, and I agree with the minister, school boards have the responsibility to make those decisions, but since they run for public office they have the responsibility to make sure that their decisions are made in a manner that assures the public that democracy is for the people, by the people and of the people, and that they vote in a public forum that leaves no doubt as to how they stand. You can't run for election and then hide.

If you are going to run for election to a town council or school board, wherever you run, you have a responsibility to make sure your vote is done in a public manner. In this particular case, the role of this Legislature is to look at the legislation which now permits school boards to do what they are doing, and to change it. That is the role of this Legislature. It is not to say to the school boards: You have to make this decision relative to Bishop O'Neill Collegiate, or make a different decision. That is not the rule for this Legislature. The rule for this Legislature is to go and say to the school boards - because right now what the school board did in the Avalon West district a few nights ago is not according what I would view as a democratic way to do things. It certainly is within the legislation that is passed by this House.

Therefore what I am saying is that -

MR. TULK: You agreed with our legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: What I am saying to the Government House Leader is that it is the responsibility -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) was it (inaudible)?

MR. H. HODDER: It is kind of lets the elected members of the school board hide. What we said here last fall -

MR. TULK: Harvey, did you vote for that legislation?

MR. H. HODDER: The Government House Leader wants to make a point. Did I vote for Bill 48, I think it was? Yes, I did.

MR. TULK: Okay.

MR. H. HODDER: Just like here today, the new act we have here on the child welfare act, there are eighteen amendments. From time to time there are amendments. Last fall we brought forward an amendment to this House and the Government House Leader voted against the amendment. The amendment would have required the school boards to have their voting either by standing or by a show of hands. The Minister of Education said: I will have legislation controlling that kind of voting in the spring session. It is not here. It is not passed around today. What I can assume by that -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) session over?

MR. H. HODDER: No, the session is not over. I would assume that the Minister of Education is so desperate to get positive news out there that you would think that she would have assured the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this was a priority. At least, that would be a substantive reason to have some kind of a Ministerial Statement.

This all ties in to what I was talking about earlier this afternoon. In the Legislature today in Question Period I was asking questions about the framework of accountability. My friend, the good Member for Cape St. Francis, was asking some questions as well today about accountability relative to special warrants. If you look at the summary section, or you can have a look at the detailed section if you want, of the Auditor General's report, the Auditor General says on pages 21 and 22: "True accountability would require that these entities, in turn, report back to the House of Assembly on their use of the resources granted." What the Auditor General is saying is that if you take money from the public purse then you should be accountable for it.

Let's have a look at what she does say. She says: "There were no reports tabled in the House of Assembly which related to the remaining $1.741 billion." I should read that again because it is very important. It is on page 18 of the Auditor General's report. She says: "There were no reports tabled in the House of Assembly which related to the remaining $1.741 billion."

Let's have a look at it. In Newfoundland and Labrador there are eighteen Health Care Boards and not one of them had a financial report tabled in the House of Assembly. There are eleven School Boards and Related Entities. Not one of them had a financial report tabled in the House of Assembly. There was the Labrador Transportation Initiatives Fund. There was no report tabled in the House of Assembly on the financial analysis. Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador? No financial report tabled in the House of Assembly. There are four Community Health Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not a single one of them tabled a report in the House of Assembly. There are four Colleges which are given money from the public purse. Not one of them had a report tabled in the House of Assembly. Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation? No report tabled in the House of Assembly. There are twenty-three Other Crown Agencies receiving Government Operating Grants and only five of them tabled reports.

What are the groups that tabled reports in the House of Assembly? Here are the five entities that tabled reports. You had the Newfoundland Medical Care Commission, which spent $161,765,000. You had the C.A. Pippy Park Commission, spending $872,000. You had Operation ONLINE Inc., spending $424,000. You had the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women spending $384,000, and you had the Newfoundland Crop Insurance Agency spending $52,000.

That amounts to $163,497,000. What the Auditor General made quite clear is that there was $1.741 billion allocated in this Legislature to these various agencies, Crown agencies and other groups that receive money from the public purse, and not one of them sent in a report. No wonder then the Auditor General is concerned. She has raised this concern over and over again.

We know that there have been some steps taken. This afternoon in Question Period the President of Treasury Board said that she was working out a policy. If she is going to go to the school boards and ask the school boards what they want to report, and if we judge by what they are doing on the voting procedure, then the school boards will say: No, don't change anything. Therefore we certainly look forward to the minister sharing her public policy initiatives with the people of this House, because $1.741 billion spent and no reports tabled in the House of Assembly certainly is great cause for concern.

In the Auditor General's report she writes: Government should complete its work in establishing a framework of accountability. This framework should apply to all departments, agencies of the Crown and Memorial University of Newfoundland. I want to note this particular statement because it is important. It says: If this framework is to be successful it is imperative that it be approved by the House of Assembly and enacted in legislation, and that it specifically requires a tabling of annual reports in the House of Assembly.

For all the niceties in what the minister said this afternoon, the Auditor General says that if we are going to have an open system, if we are going to have a system where there is accountability -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - then the legislation needs to be tabled in the House, and it specifically required, and it is imperative to be done, in accordance with the wishes of the Auditor General.

For more reference, people should read pages 2 and 3 of the summary and they can read pages 17 to 21 in the main report.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to continue with the theme of education, but mine pertains to the District of St. John's West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: It is on the Budget, sir, and on Concurrence and on education, but mine doesn't pertain to the school boards directly as much as it pertains to the District of St. John's West.

The District of St. John's West has a high school. It has this high school now almost twenty years, but as of September 2000 this district will not have a high school. After the education reform, when this high school was slated to close, some 8,500 petitions were brought to this House of Assembly requesting that K to XII be maintained in St. John's West. Eighty-five hundred was extensively representative of the residents in St. John's West. It was asked that the Minister of Education put enough funding into the school boards so that this high school could be maintained. The minister came back and said there wasn't enough money, the money just wasn't there.

Then I reflected back to February 8, 1999 when a press release came out of the eighth floor in this building. The press release was by the Premier of the Province. It said: If there isn't a consensus I, myself, will intervene. Now I don't know if that was fraudulent, I don't know if it was misleading the people of the Province, but the Premier of this Province did not at any time intervene. It would be interesting to see how the fraud and elections case goes out in British Columbia, to see if maybe the people of the Province don't have a case where on February 8, one day before the February 9 election, in 1999, the Premier of the Province, for political purposes - and it must have been for political purposes; he had absolutely no intention of carrying it out - made a statement that he himself would intervene. From February 8, 1999 until this day the Premier of this Province has not kept his word. He has at no time intervened. There was a consensus, because over 8,500 people in the District of St. John's West signed a petition. Most of the people -

MR. MATTHEWS: Eighty-five hundred is not much of a consensus out of 150,000 in St. John's.

MS S. OSBORNE: Of the people in St. John's West, that was the consensus. That was the consensus of the people. A neighbourhood school is where a child whose family is on social assistance has to walk nearly two kilometres to a junior high school and there is no busing provided? I was speaking with a woman in my district last night. Where am I -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) I will tell you how far I walked to school forty years ago.

MS S. OSBORNE: I do not give a rat's tail, to be quite honest, how far you walked to school. Nobody promised you a neighbourhood school. The Premier of this Province, whom you serve under, promised the people of this Province a neighbourhood school and they did not get it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I would like for the hon. member to explain to me in more detail what type of message she is trying to convey to me, what she is trying to say in as many words, when she talks about rat's tails in her debate. If there is any relevance to the issue of this Budget that has, by way of interpretation, to use the illustration of a rat's tail involved in it, I would like to know from her. Because she has lost me. I would appreciate knowing the relevance of the rat's tail comment to the Budget debate that we are now currently involved in. If there is relevance to it I might find some value in it if I have the opportunity to prepare future budgets, but I am not sure at this point where it would fit into the grand scheme of language to be used in a budget speech.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order.

I think what she was trying to say was that wherever there is a rat's tail there is a rat not too far away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to hear it from her. I appreciate your (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: My (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order.

Obviously the hon. minister is making a valid point in terms of relevance, but I think it is also recognized that in this House over the last few days there has been considerable latitude given to everyone on both sides of the House. I do not think it would be fair, at this point in time, for the Chair to now enforce strict rules with regards to relevance.

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

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

I guess I was referring to the hon. member's fear of the rodents, and I thought that rats were quite a lot bigger than mice.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order? There is no point of order but you are raising a point of order, are you?

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to speak to the point of order and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. Are you raising a point of order?

MR. MATTHEWS: I am raising a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: The point of order that I am raising, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member has explained herself, and I want to express my gratitude in the context of it being raised as a point of order by saying essentially that her comment with respect to a rat's tail had in some small measure relevance to my comments in The Telegram about being afraid of rodents. I appreciate her effort, but I have to say at this point that I am not convinced yet that her rat's tail observation has anything to do with my fear of rodents. I think it was rather an effort to describe in some overt and oblique fashion a sense of cowardice on my part. I am going to speak more fully when she sits down to this whole issue of rat's tail versus high schools in St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister has clearly demonstrated that confession is good for the soul, but he still has not made a valid point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

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

I would like to have it clarified that rats' tails do not have anything to do with high schools in St. John's West, but rats' tails do have some measure of degree to how much I care about how far you walked to school, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

Are you raising a point of order?

MR. MATTHEWS: I am raising a point of order. Actually, I am raising a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. Because I get the feeling that the hon. member, my member in this House of Assembly, a person who represents the district that I live in, a person who should be caring about my welfare, a person who should be understanding of my personality, and a person who should have the ability to give me some degree of latitude, has, in essence, rose in the House and said to one of her constituents: I couldn't care less about you, I couldn't care less about what you think, I couldn't care less about how you feel, I couldn't care less about your view and your opinion on education, on rodents, on rats' tails or anything. I simply have no respect for you, Mr. Minister, as a constituent of mine.

As a constituent, I take great offense to that. I would ask the hon. member if in the bowels of her heart, given the fact I am sure she forgot I was a constituent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that I know it slipped her mind that I was a constituent when she made that disparaging remark toward me, now, having being made aware and reminded that I am her constituent, I'm wondering if she couldn't, from the lower inner recesses of her heart - if not the bowels - find it in some small way to recognize her respect and her appreciation for her constituent, whom on some day she will come again knocking on his door looking for a vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I recall in the last election the hon. member - and I appreciated the visit - coming to my house. I took time from my barbecuing on the deck to come out and talk to her and her good husband and her large entourage of family that she had in tow to have a conversation with my member about the whole business of the democratic process that we were going through. In the context of all of that, I am wondering if she would not reconsider her rat's tail comments vis-à-vis me and my hurt feelings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is wont to take the minister to task with regards to relevance, but in an effort to stop the ongoing hemorrhage I rule there is no point of personal privilege.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

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

I thought we were debating Concurrence, but it has turned into a real anatomy session: rats' tails, bowels of hearts, hemorrhages etc.

When my hon. constituent, and actually my Member in the House of Assembly, was up speaking and he talked about my visit to his house -

AN HON. MEMBER: So, he was at your house too, right?

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, he was at my house. I have to say, he was as well-received at my home as I was at his home.

MR. MATTHEWS: She (inaudible) it up. No matter how much she begs, in the next election I will not put a sign on her lawn. I do not care how much she (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: What was really nice about it was the sign on your lawn was directly opposite the sign on my lawn. I did enjoy, on my first time campaigning, the visit with your grandchildren. I think the grandchildren actually had more compassion because they had a lemonade stand out that day -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you buy anything off of them?

MS S. OSBORNE: I absolutely did buy. I was really thirsty by the time I got to that house and the children had a lemonade stand out.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, having now received the additional bit of information from the hon. member who affirms that when she was campaigning she stopped at the lemonade stand that my grandchildren had set up, even though I was not aware of it, the fact that she would stop and buy lemonade - good, red, Liberal lemonade - and spend good hard-earned money for it, I deeply appreciate that gesture. Any thought she may have had in her heart or any connotation she may have had in her verbiage with respect to disrespect for me, I disregard it completely. I accept fully, with great appreciation, her indulgence at the lemonade stand on Harrington Drive for the benefit of the entrepreneurial spirit of my grandchildren.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Before I get back to the debate, I would like to say that the lemonade was not red, it was yellow.

AN HON. MEMBER: NDP lemonade.

MS S. OSBORNE: NDP lemonade.

Anyway, that was a nice little diversion from my discussion as to how the Premier of the Province misled the people, and the people of my district, when he told them they were going to get neighborhood schools. Unfortunately, they haven't gotten neighborhood schools.

We are talking about the Estimates, and I found it interesting when I was at the Budget Estimates on Justice. I brought up the amount of RNC officers who are on a shift at any one time. One of the officials from the Department of Justice said that there are twenty-nine RNC officers on shift at any given time. I had been given different information before I went to the meeting, and I have checked on it since. The response from the official from the Department of Justice does not concur with the information that I received from the RNC. Twenty-nine might be the maximum and that is on a very busy shift, but I would like to suggest that it is much less than that, very much less than that. I tied that into the number of apprehensions there are for people who are driving while impaired, causing death on our highways and causing injury to the residents to the Province and to the visitors to the Province.

While we were at the Estimates debate, I asked a question, or I made an observation, that last January I was visiting somebody over in the Health Sciences, and when I was leaving the Health Sciences there were two RNC officers going in, and they were going into the morgue. A man had been killed on a highway as a result of a traffic accident, and the traffic accident was caused by impaired driving. I stopped for a few moments just to talk to the two officers. They looked like they were really feeling the pain and suffering that the family of this accident victim would obviously be feeling. They were very compassionate. They said to me that it was as a result of impaired driving. They said: You know, if there were more of us on the road, we could apprehend more people, we would be more visible around, and it might cut down on the amount of impair driving instances.

The amount of impaired driving instances that are recorded is certainly not reflective on the amount of people who are driving on our highways today while under the influence of alcohol. Obviously, if the amount of police are reduced then the amount of apprehensions would be reduced. I made that observation while I was in the Department of Justice Estimates. The answer that I received was: That person who made that observation to you would obviously have a personal agenda.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS S. OSBORNE: That the RNC would be making a statement like that to a politician so that more people would be put on the force, so that the members in the RNC Association would be shored up. I thought to myself: How callous! What an observation! What an attitude!

When I was thinking about that after, I remembered that at one time a former Minister of Justice had said in this House of Assembly to one of my hon. colleagues, when he brought up the number of police that were on the highway on patrol: The amount of crime is down. If you want more police, then go out and commit more crime.

I thought, as I reflected on both these statement: Does that attitude really permeate through the entire Department of Justice? If you want more police, go out and commit more crime, and that a member of the RNC, when he was feeling so compassionate about the death of an individual, where he had been at the scene of the accident shortly after the accident happened and was party to witnessing that a person had died. Would he really be callous enough to say that RNC officer would relay this information to me just to get more RNC, just to get the RNC Association shored up? I don't really think so. I think that this is a terrible attitude that permeates the entire Department of Justice.

I brought up, at the same meeting, the women's correctional facility in Clarenville. I visited that facility a year-and-a-half or two years ago and I had a chat with some of the residents there. One of their problems, and one fo the problems that was seen, of course, and one of the recommendations was that an extension for a more educational facility be put on, and that in fact has been done.

Also, one of their problems was the lack of privacy that they had while they were incarcerated at that institution. While I feel and have always felt that if it is necessary, for certain crimes, to incarcerate individuals, that incarceration should not include humiliation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave. I want to hear the rest of it.

MS S. OSBORNE: Do you want to hear the rest of it?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants leave, we will give it to her; but, I tell you, if he stands up (inaudible) no leave.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I would.

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

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

I have always felt that incarceration fit some crimes but that the humiliation of the inmates at any correctional facility, whether it is a female correctional facility or a male one, should not include humiliation and a lack of privacy.

The women in the facility showed me how the cell doors close. I brought it up again at the Estimates meeting that I was concerned for the privacy of the women who in fact were residing at that facility in Clarenville, because the cell doors don't close, and because of the presence of male guards. I know, I was told by the male guards that they do all in their power to respect the privacy of the prisoners; but when the toilet is hung on a wall inside a room and the door won't close, if there is nobody around to lean on the door to keep it closed for you, then you have no privacy. That is another element of the incarceration to which I think most people would not subscribe.

I think there were recommendations from the E. Fry Society that that was one of the major concerns. I don't think anything has been done and it sounded, from the tone at that meeting, that nothing was going to be done. The E. Fry report probably went a little bit too far, but can we go too far when we are talking about respect for human beings? Unfortunately, that cavalier attitude permeates the entire Department of Justice and unfortunately, I guess, while this Administration is in power, we won't see those injustices rectified.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and say a few words in Concurrence Debate. I listened with interest to the Member for St. John's West as she and the Minister of Finance had a healthy discussion back and forth. I can remember when I was young, when you would be out playing in the backyard and you would be always arguing with the girls around the community. My mother used to always say it was a real sign that you are after them when you are arguing with them like that. It's a real sign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: It's a real sign you are right fond of them when you are arguing and fighting in the backyard like that. So I have to wonder what really is going on here because, as I was just saying, when we were young and we would be out in the backyard arguing back and forth -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I have to clarify for my purposes. The hon. member, my member, my constituent, can speak for herself. I have to clarify for my purposes the extent to which I am after that hon. member on the other side. I am after her to the extent that she has one X that goes in a ballot box in St. John's North. To the extent that she might be able to be helpful to me, I am indeed after her. I am courting her, I am cajoling her, I am chasing her literally until I get her into the ballot box, get the pencil in her hand and the paper under her nose, and the X marked in the appropriate place. After that, I am essentially done with my pursuit of the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West, to the point of order.

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to make a point of order to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance. Thank to the Elections Act, my X goes in the box in St. John's West, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Having listened to both sides make their presentations with regards to the point of order, I think the Chair is a little clearer now, and perhaps the earlier reference to the rat's tail wasn't so far off base.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say you are a man of much patience.

I listened with interest, because I look back on years ago. I can remember when we were younger, and I can remember my mother saying that it shows you're really fond of someone, when you argue with them back and forth all day. I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance is fond of the Member for St. John's West, and the Member of St. John's West is fond of the Minister of Finance. That part I can understand.

The part I have a problem with, and I just like to touch on this before I get into my own remarks, is that when the minister got up talking about the lemonade that his grandchildren had on the side of the road, he was very happy to say that it was red lemonade. Whether it come from the bowels of his heart or not, I don't know where it came from, but he talked about the red lemonade. I am sure what the minister was trying to put across was that it was red lemonade because it was coming from a Liberal background,. When the Member for St. John's West got up, she said it was yellow lemonade - yellow. Now, yellow wasn't our side, so I said in my own mind: Oh, I know what it is now. It is recycled Tory lemonade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: It's not blue lemonade, which would be Tory lemonade. It's not red lemonade, which would be Liberal lemonade. It's yellow lemonade which is recycled Tory lemonade, and it is alive and well in Cowan Heights. It is alive and well in St. John's West.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can think of other names for yellow liquid.

MR. MANNING: I could other adjectives for yellow liquid also, but I will leave that alone. As far as I am concerned, it is recycled lemonade.

We talked about St. John's West. I think we should leave the provincial riding of St. John's West and just take a step up the road to the federal riding of St. John's West, which has certainly been in the news over the past couple of days. I would like to make a few comments, if I could, because a part of St. John's West is part of my district. My district is part of St. John's West, from Placentia & St. Mary's. I watched with interest over the past couple of days and indeed the past few weeks as the Premier's candidate in St. John's West for the Liberal nomination -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. MANNING: You can leave this to your imagination. The Premier's candidate felt that it was going to be pretty well a done deal. There are not too many who can go out and say: I have the Premier behind me. So the Premier's candidate went traveling around St. John's West. He was up against the Grimes candidate. The Premier's candidate was in the face-off with the Minister Grimes candidate. Now I am sure that the members opposite, like myself, can put the names together. We had the Premier's candidate in the by-election, and then we had the Mr. Grimes candidate in the St. John's Liberal nomination.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: Mr. Grimes knows who I am talking about. We had the Grimes candidate, we had the Premier's candidate, we had Mr. Furey's candidate, a good friend of the former MP for St. John's West, and then we had Mr. Gibbons' candidate. We had three ministers - the Premier, two ministers, and the former minister - who were out pushing their candidates. We looked in and for three or four days we heard: 9,800 people signed up in St. John's West to vote in the Liberal nomination.

Then, you listen to the radio, the Open Line shows and the media, and you figure there is going to be an awful turnout, a tremendous turnout in St. John's West for the Liberal nomination. Personally, I know the Mr. Grimes candidate, a very nice man who spent some time here in the House. He was a minister in the Cabinet, in full support of Minister Grimes, but he wasn't exactly sure of how to go about things. I thought he would have done better than he did.

Then we had Mr. Furey's candidate, who is the former MP for St. John's West. Mr. Furey, who used to live on Waterford Bridge Road, was in full support of the former MP for St. John's West.

Then the Premier's candidate - well, I mean, the establishments candidate. Was there ever any question in anybody's mind, was there ever any thought in anybody's mind that somebody who would be crowned by the Premier himself would not end up, at the end of the day, with the nomination? I know of a phone call that the Premier's candidate made out to my district in Placentia. He made it to a former minister. He asked the former minister for support in the Liberal nomination for St. John's West, and the former minister said: Little boy, go home with your mommy. That's the answer he gave him.

Then we sit down and listen over the radio: 9,800 people signed up to vote in the Liberal nomination. How many went out to vote? Seventeen hundred and seven.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Go away, boy!

MR. MANNING: Seventeen hundred and seven people. Seventeen hundred and seven out of 9,800. It was around 17 per cent, give or take 17 per cent. So we had 9,800 people signed up and we had 1,707 who voted. Ten provincial districts and 1,707 people went out to vote.

When I ran in 1992 for the nomination in the District of St. Mary's-The Capes at the time, which is much smaller than what the district of Placentia & St. Mary's is today, in one provincial District of St. Mary's-The Capes at the time, from our nomination there were 1,712 people who voted in 1992. Seventeen hundred and twelve people voted in St. Mary's-The Capes in a nomination in the fall of 1992, in November. Fish or no fish, they came out in November of 1992 and voted in the Liberal nomination. We had 1,712 in the small provincial district of St. Mary's-The Capes versus 1,707 in the large District of St. John's West in the year 2000. I think that sends a message loud and clear.

Then we looked down and we had 1,707 out to vote, which is certainly not something that I hear anybody shouting and roaring about from the other side of the House. They are certainly not shouting and roaring about 1,707 people out to vote out of 9,800. Then the votes are tallied, and because there were 1,707 people who voted, the Liberal Party decides: We are not going to release -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Topsail, I had more out in my nomination in 1992 in St. Mary's-The Capes than the whole entire District of St. John's West had out.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) for nomination.

MR. MANNING: We took care of our own backyard. We didn't spill it all over St. John's West this time. We didn't spill it all over St. John's West!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Topsail, on May 15 you will understand why we didn't spill it all over St. John's West.

Let's have a look, 1,707 people. Now I can guarantee you today, as sure as I am standing in the House of Assembly, that if there were 8,500 people who went out to vote in St. John's West nomination you would have given out the numbers. You would have given out the numbers if the 8,500 people had gone out to vote, but there were 1,707. What did the Liberal Party do? We won't release the number. We can't release the number. Why? Because you are too ashamed to release the number. You were not proud to stand up and say: We had 9,800 signed up and 1,700 came out to vote. You lost 8,000 people somewhere along the line. That is chaos. You will not be able to get them back, I say.

Now we look, we had the Premier who went around and crowned his candidate in St. John's West. He could have taken a twenty-one year old deputy mayor; he would have gone down to Bristol Communications Inc. in the next three weeks and they would have packaged him. I am telling you, it would be like the new advertisement for Bud Light. You couldn't resist it. When they would be finished the slogan you be ‘you cannot resist it.' They would have taken that twenty-one year old deputy mayor and they would have packaged him in and tried to make him the Member for St. John's West. No, it couldn't be done - out the window.

The people of Mount Pearl did not like the tactics of the Premier and his people. So, what did they do? They spurned him. There were more people who went out to vote in Placentia than went out to vote in Mount Pearl, and 30,000 people there.

We had 1,707 who went out to vote. So, you turn on Night Line and there are several people calling into the show, and the next morning the same thing, and people in the media are wondering: Why won't they release the number? Why won't they tell us how many people voted and how many each person got? Why? Because we had 9,800 people signed up and we had 1,700 people vote. That is why.

So then what do we do? Two-hundred and eight people out of the 1,707 decided that they would put their faith in the former MP for St. John's West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I listened the other night on the Open Line show when the former MP for St. John's West came on Open Line - I think it was Mr. Rowe she was talking to the other morning - she said: Mr. Rowe, I want to finish the job I started.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who said?

MR. MANNING: The former MP for St. John's West. She said: I want to finish the job I started.

Well, I can look at the numbers that came out of the Liberal nomination and I would say the people finished her before she even got the second run up to bat. She finished it. She finished herself. She ended up with 208 votes. She wanted to start the job she finished, all over again. She ended up with 208 votes. Even though she had the full support of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, she ended up with 208 votes at the end of the day.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did he support her?

MR. MANNING: He supported her to the hilt, a very big supporter, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. He couldn't take a chance on running himself in St. John's West, so he said he was going to send out the former MP for St. John's West.

Then we came up with the Minister of Health and Community Services - the Grimes candidate. The Grimes candidate went around. I have to say, with all honesty, I spent a few years here in the House with the Grimes candidate, a very nice man, very easy to get along with, very sociable kind of fellow - back and forth, easy to get along with. The Grimes candidate in the Liberal nomination I thought would have done much better. Not the fact that Mr. Grimes was supporting him, but the fact that he knew a lot of people throughout the district.

At the end of the day, even though he had the full support of the Minister of Health, he came up with 286 votes. If he couldn't move that many people in St. John's West, I have to say to him that he should have been careful about who was supporting him in the back rooms.

I have to ask myself the bigger question here, because if the Grimes candidate had to win St. John's West, and then the Minister of Health and Community Services was vying for the job that he wants to have down the road, having the MP for St. John's West out supporting you to the hilt would have helped an awful lot in the minister's future plans.

Now if two of them combined, if the Minister of Health and Community Services and the former Minister of Labour could get together and have 9,800 names on a sheet of paper, and could get 286 out to vote for him, I think he is in big trouble for premier of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I think he is in big trouble, if out of 9,800, when they sit down at the kitchen table and he said: Roger, we have her made, we have 9,800 people. Don't worry, Tom. Look, all you have to do is get 1,000 and you have it. Don't worry about it. We have 9,800 to pick from. Between the Minister of Health and the former Minister of Labour they got 286 people to vote, out of 9,800. He had better plan strategy for the next contest that he is looking for and he had better get a few more Toms around the table because he is going to have a problem.

Then we moved up to the Premier's candidate. I'm telling you, when the news came out and the news conference was held, and we knew that he had been sanctioned by the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. MANNING: The Premier's candidate, Mr. Speaker, sanctioned by the Premier. The Premier said: Listen here.

AN HON. MEMBER: ‘Stevie Wonder.'

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's candidate, ‘Stevie Wonder.' ‘Stevie Wonder' came along and the Premier laid the hands on his shoulders and said: Do not worry about the nomination, I will take care of the nomination. Here we go back to the list of 9,800 people and ‘Stevie Wonder' was out doing his thing and the Premier was out doing his thing, and the other people were out helping him. We have to get him in there, a twenty-one year old deputy mayor. We will go down to - what do you call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bristol.

MR. MANNING: We will go down to Bristol, we will package him up in the next three weeks, and we will put his picture on jam crocks if we have to. We will sell him over the next three weeks, and he will be the next MP for St. John's West because - this is the Premier now - because the Premier said he is going to be the next MP for St. John's West. They took the list of 9,800 people. There are 30,000-odd people in Mount Pearl, is it, I say to the former mayor of Mount Pearl?

AN HON. MEMBER: There are 27,000 people.

MR. MANNING: There are 27,000 people in Mount Pearl. There are 9,800 people on a list, Mr. Speaker, to pick from. Four hundred and ninety-four people show up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Four hundred and ninety-four people show up out of 27,000, out of 9,800 for ‘Stevie Wonder.'

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that was all St. John's West.

MR. MANNING: Yes, but I am saying he had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: He got one in St. Bride's.

MR. MANNING: He got one in St. Bride's. Now I have a big problem the weekend, going home trying to figure out who that was. I have a full job during Easter. He had 494 come out -

AN HON. MEMBER: He had two in St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Yes, two of them. Do not be giving me that kind of trouble. Four hundred and ninety-four out of 9,800 for the Premier's candidate. When the Premier lays his hands on your shoulders and says: Don't worry about the nomination, maybe he should have said: Get out and hustle. Maybe he should have said: Get out and hit the doors and get (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He was up in Trespassey.

MR. MANNING: He was up in Trespassey. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, he ended up with 494.

Then we have Dr. Gibbons' candidate. Dr. Gibbons was almost the candidate himself, but then he got the cold shoulder from Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister. He got the cold shoulder from the Premier because he was supporting Paul Martin for the leadership. That was bad enough, but he was working on straightening that out and then - I mean, Jean Chrétien gave him the cold shoulder, the Premier gave him the cold shoulder, and he was wavering. Then Mr. Hearn steps up to the plate and Gibbons is gone. He never looked back. He could not take it.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, if I could.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: So the Premier's candidate was left out in the cold. So we are dealing with Dr. Gibbons' candidate. Dr. Gibbons' candidate steps up to the plate, a friend of mine a few years ago before he got into this racket of politics, but it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I am not sure if it is the same fellow. I have not had time to check it out yet. Dr. Gibbons' candidate then, sanctioned and had the hands laid on his shoulders by Dr. Gibbons, was the former MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) campaign (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I was a blue baby and I will be a blue corpse, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, that is right from the bowels of my stomach. If anybody should question their loyalty to a party, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot do that. Maybe you are wondering who you are going to support next.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: Maybe you are wondering who you are going to support next.

Anyway, if I could get back to my St. John's West nomination report, just to finish up. The Dr. Gibbons' candidate had hands laid on his shoulder by Dr. Gibbons, who got the cold shoulder, as I say, from the Premier, who got the cold shoulder from Jean Chrétien, because he was Paul Martin's supporter. He ended up winning the day with 709 votes. I will tell you why he won. Because the people of Placentia always come out to vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did Bill Hogan vote?

MR. MANNING: Bill Hogan, the former minister, was supporting Mr. Grimes' candidate. He pulled forty-seven votes out of Placentia. That will tell how much weight he has out there. He is not a heavyweight out there any more.

At the end of the day, Dr. Gibbons' candidate ended up winning the nomination with 709 votes. Now, 513 of them came from Placentia. So when Dr. Gibbons' candidate left Point Verde he went down the Cape Shore, down through St. Mary's Bay, he went up the Southern Shore, he went into Kilbride, in the Goulds, into the City of Mount Pearl, out through the bottom of St. John's, up to Shea Heights, and out of all that he ended up with 196 votes.

If there is a message anywhere there is message in the St. John's West Liberal candidate selection process. We have 1,707 people who came out to vote out of 9,800 people signed up. We had four teams of people who could not get 500 people each to go out to vote. So there is a message there. I say selection will come down to credibility. Therefore, the Liberal nomination will only be a thing of the past after May 15. It will only be a memory. I say, it is 1,707 people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I can understand people on the other side of the House being upset. I can understand the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is upset. Here we are heading into Easter, here we are heading into the holidays, knowing that you have 9,800 on the list and 1,700 people came out to vote. Four teams could not even get 500 people out each. It is a clear message, and is certainly going to be worked on over the next couple of weeks. I mean, it is a message that is going to follow right through until May 15.

Anyway, that is the report on the St. John' s West candidate selection. I have another report here. It is called a public inquiry into allegations of irregularities associated with public service competitions, but I am going to leave that report until after Easter. It is very detailed and we do not have a lot of time.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the members on the other side of the House and their families a Happy Easter. On your side of the House and on this side of the House, I wish you a Happy Easter.

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, in closing is that I hope you enjoy your Easter break. We look forward to coming back here in May. We are going to have another member on this side of the House with us to strengthen this side of the House. We are going to look forward to a great month of May in St. John's West where we are going to have a good Tory member representing the great people of St. John's West, including the people in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's. We are going to have a great person, Loyola Hearn, as an MP for St. John's West after May 15. We look forward to working with him.

In closing, when I look back at the Liberal nomination process in St. John's West, where we saw 1,707 people out of 9,800 come out to vote, where we see the victor of that nomination process the former MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's, all I can say, from the bottom of my heart, to the Liberals of St. John's West, is thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded, ‘nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is now very close to 5:30 p.m., and I would move that the record show that. Before I do that I would like to wish all of the people on the opposite side, I am sure, a -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about your own side?

MR. TULK: Wait till I get there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: From my rat's tail.

I wish the best to everybody connected with the House in any way, Mr. Speaker, and the members on this side as well of course. All of us I am sure will have a good Easter, a good break. Some of us better than others, in some sunny parts of the world, playing a few rounds of golf maybe.

I have to say something else, Mr. Speaker. I got a pleasant surprise the other evening when I went out to the hockey game that was carried on between the doctors and the MHAs. I will tell you something -

MR. MATTHEWS: Did you participate?

MR. TULK: No, I was a spectator, but I have to tell you something. My admiration for the Member for Ferryland went up tremendously.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really? Why?

MR. TULK: Oh, he's a great hockey player.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he?

MR. TULK: Oh, absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We have seen him skate in the House. He is pretty (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh yes. (Inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Even at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, having said that I would like to wish everybody a Happy Easter and a good break. We will see everybody on May 1.

I move that the House adjourn until 1:30 p.m. on May 1.

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