The House met at 11:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this month the Burin Peninsula branch of the Canadian Red Cross Society held its annual gathering to recognize a number of its local volunteers. To mark certain milestones and contributions, certificates and pins were presented.

For their ongoing contributions, Mr. Joe Edwards, Branch President, and Ms Elizabeth Stacey were presented with the Red Cross Service Award.

The Milestone Award and pin was presented to individuals who have dedicated ten years or more to the organization. Recipients included: Harvey Brown, Georgina Kilfoy, Bride Mitchell, Gertrude Lambe, Kathleen Fewer, Ellen Chapman, Laura Harding and Carmelita Ward.

The following volunteers: Kathleen Wells, Mary Drake, Maxine Hooper, Violet Murphy, Vincent Molloy, and Regina Joyce, were presented with a Certificate of Merit and a pin for their various efforts to the Red Cross.

Citation Awards went to: Yvonne Crew, Vera Molloy, Marine Workers Local 20, Aylward's Home Centre, Spencer's Transportation, Cheeseman's Transportation, and the Town of Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, organizations such as the Red Cross could not exist without the aid of volunteers. For their time, patience and dedication, I would like to congratulate all of these recipients on receiving their awards. I would also like to acknowledge all other volunteers in other Red Cross branches and thank them for their effort and determination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the organizers in Labrador West for another successful Great Labrador Loppet, which was held on March 29.

This marks the twenty-eighth year for this event, a cross-country ski race from Fermont, Quebec to Labrador City, a distance of twenty-seven kilometres. For the more ardent skiers, the race is from Labrador City to Fermont return for a distance of fifty-four kilometres.

This year, Mr. Speaker, approximately 200 participants took place in the event. We had people from outside the area of Labrador West, from other parts of Labrador, from the Island part of the Province, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and even as far away as Australia. One group of avid skiers drove twenty hours to take part in the event.

The best time for the ski race, the fifty-four kilometre event, went to Mr. Cross Country himself of this Province, Mr. Alf Parsons, and Mike Dyon of Ontario who finished the fifty-four kilometres in a time of two hours and fifty-nine minutes, an average speed of eighteen kilometres per hour.

Mr. Speaker, also in attendance were George LeFeuvre, a former long-time resident who is a world renowned ski track setter, Colin Jardine, developer of the Menihek Nordic ski trails, Judge Bruce LeGrow, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Cross Country, and Jack White, President of the Cross Country Canadian Masters Association.

Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate all volunteers and participants on another successful Loppet and in particular the sponsor, Provincial Airlines, and the co-sponsor, the Iron Ore Company of Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate students from Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts who are taking the lead where they see need.

Ten students and two teachers, sponsors who form the group GAIA, have taken on the major project of obtaining an environmentally friendly septic system for the school. Members of the business community have come on board with the students to assist in this worthwhile project. This is a very good example of students taking responsibility for their local environment and presenting an example for us all to follow.

This is a major project they have undertaken, and some estimates of the cost of doing this kind of project would be in the range of half a million dollars. Once completed, an environmentally friendly septic system would break down the waste to a point where no harm would occur to the area's ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of the hon. House join with me in congratulating this group of teachers and students for taking the lead in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to salute a company in my district for its leadership in quality assurance and quality control.

Over the lunch hour, I will have the pleasure of attending Labatt Brewery's accreditation under the HACCP program, the first brewery in Canada to receive such a distinction.

The HACCP, or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, was originally developed by NASA and Pillsbury Foods in the 1960s to ensure the safety of food for the astronauts in the space program. It has since evolved into a world recognized standard for food safety and quality assurance. The local brewery has been working towards its HACCP accreditation for eighteen months.

While the accreditation is not required in the brewing industry, Labatt has voluntarily undertaken this program in all of its breweries across the country, with our brewery right here in St. John's becoming the first in Canada to become certified.

I congratulate everybody at Labatt for their excellent work and for raising the standard for the beverage industry in this Province and across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at a news conference earlier today Premier Grimes and myself, along with Dr. Doug May of Memorial University and Brendan Doyle, Chair of the Premier's Council on Social Development, released From the Ground Up, the Province's first-ever report that measures well-being in Newfoundland and Labrador.

From the Ground Up is part of the first-ever Social Audit for this Province and for the country. It takes the vision of the Strategic Social Plan and translates it into a series of key social and economic indicators.

We want people to start thinking about the connections, for example, between education levels, health status, employment and economic prosperity. People have talked about these connections for a long time. They have told us that social and economic development go hand in hand. We are now reporting these relationships in an integrated way.

We committed to reporting back on our social progress when we launched the Strategic Social Plan in 1998. Mr. Speaker, release of From the Ground Up is an important part of that commitment. A government must have the courage to challenge itself to measure the work it is doing. This is one way we remain accountable to the people we serve and find out if we are moving in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, indicators in From the Ground Up are used nationally and internationally to measure social and economic well-being. This makes it possible to compare our Province with other places. We need this kind of information to check our progress over time.

When it comes to innovative social policy development in this country, we have a number of firsts of which we can be proud. We were the first Province to implement a Strategic Social Plan, the first Province to create an information system called Community Accounts that measures well-being, and the first to carry out a Social Audit. Mr. Speaker, the Social Audit is scheduled to be completed and released publicly by the end of 2003.

In the spirit of the SSP, development of From the Ground Up was a consultative process that involved officials from the Strategic Social Plan, the Premier's Council on Social Development, the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency, Memorial University as well as government departments.

From the Ground Up is an example of the SSP in action. Its development was a partnership effort, and it reflects the SSP's emphasis on evidence-based decision making.

Within government and across the Province there are many examples of the SSP at work making differences for people and communities.

The Strategic Health Plan and new Social Assistance legislation reflect SSP values of early intervention and prevention, collaboration and consultation.

Mr. Speaker, in regions across this Province, SSP initiatives help support volunteer development and build leadership skills, improve recruitment and retention strategies for professionals, and profile young people who are contributing to their communities.

SSP steering communities also bring partners together to support after school activities that give children access to programs such as air cadets, and bring community resources together in new and collaborative ways. Some of our schools are becoming true community centres.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work happening From the Ground Up in communities across this Province. And I encourage everyone to read From the Ground Up to learn about the social and economic life of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, want to commend the government for finally getting along to change from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: - an illness approach to health care to a wellness approach.

Certainly, we, on this side, know and have known for a long time the link between health and social economic status that has been researched in Newfoundland and Labrador, going back for thirty years. We also know the link between nutrition counselling and health care, particularly as it applies to seniors.

Some years ago Dr. Chandra, a well-known international researcher who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, wrote articles, and they have been shared among members, which showed that for every dollar that you invest in nutrition and nutrition counselling, particularly as applied to seniors, will save you $10 in health care costs.

We, on this side, commend the government finally moving forward on this initiative. We believe in social audits. We know, as well, that this government is finally coming to that realization and we encourage them. It is part of our approach that we would put forward when we become the government in the next few months.

We want to, also, encourage our communities to be proactive and to facilitate a positive program of community leadership on social and economic issues. We want to commend, as well, the Community Services Council for the great work they have done in pushing this government to be proactive and to help our communities be strong and vibrant and to encourage local leadership at the community level.

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.

When the Strategic Social Plan and proposed Social Audit was announced five years ago in 1998, I said this was an excuse for the government to put off dealing with the problems. Now we have information from the Social Audit confirming what we already knew, Mr. Speaker, that the rate of child poverty in the Province has, in fact, grown by 6 per cent in the last ten years, that we have the highest per capita rate of food bank use in the country, and that twice as many women as men are making less then $15,000 a year.

Now, the whole purpose of a Strategic Social Plan is supposed to improve the conditions of people in the Province, not just report on how bad they are. It is useful to have the information. I am glad we have the information but what we need is results and we need something from this government that is going to change these things so that these statistics are getting better, not worse, and that children are not forced to live in poverty, people are not forced to go to food banks and people have better incomes and a better way of life in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his capacity, I believe, as Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Air Policy.

Over the last several months anybody watching what was happening with our so-called - and I want to emphasize the word so-called, Mr. Speaker - national airline, Air Canada, would understand and know that the situation Air Canada finds themselves in and have found themselves in, in terms of its debt issues related to requests from the union for rollbacks of wages, potential of 3,600 employees being laid off and the reduction, if not outright termination, of flights to smaller parts of Canada. I want to ask the government, in light of that situation that has been ongoing for the last several weeks, and in view of the fact today that Air Canada has sought bankruptcy protection from its creditors, what policies have government adopted, what assurances have government gotten, and what assurances have they sought to ensure that the level of air service that we have right now is not only maintained but actually enhanced and improved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet Committee on Air Policy has been very active, very diligent, in trying to ensure that this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is provided with efficient air access, good air access at affordable prices and at affordable fares.

Mr. Speaker, we have left no stone unturned. The hon. gentleman knows very well that this is a federal matter. All we can do is lobby with the various ministers, lobby with the various airlines, and this we have done. We have had seventeen meetings with all of the stakeholders over the past year that this committee was formed. As I indicated just a little while ago, we have submitted that report to Cabinet . The advice to Cabinet was that we continue on the activities of the air policy so that we can impress upon Air Canada, and upon the federal minister, the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador want good air service at affordable prices right throughout the entire Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We will see what stones the Government House Leader and chairman of the air policy has really unearthed or overturned. For example, any new business in this country, under the new economy, requires certain things when they are making decisions to locate. The most primary and fundamental thing that they are looking for is timely access, multi-destinations, because, in the new economy, most of the industries that are being created have a huge service component.

I would like to ask the minister this question: In overturning all of those stones, what analysis have you done, or any aspect your government have done, related to how current situations would impact the ability of new businesses to locate to Newfoundland and Labrador? And, what analysis have you done that if there are any further reductions or terminations of existing flights in and out of the Province, what impact that would have? In answering the question, could the minister also not only indicate what analysis but could he table it for all of us to see?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously, if the airlines were to stop flying in certain areas of the Province, if they were to stop flying to St. John's, or if they were to reduce their flights to St. John's, it would have a negative impact, but we are living in a free market situation and all this Province can do is to make its case to the federal government and to make its case to the airlines. We are quite pleased, for example, with what has happened with our own provincial airlines, with Provincial Airlines and Air Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: - who have increased their flights to many parts of the Province. They have increased their flights to the mainland for interconnections. We believe that there is an opportunity for these two airlines. They are making a great contribution and are certainly coming in to fill that void.

Mr. Speaker, we realize as well that there is a necessity for the size of aircraft that Air Canada has and we can only hope that in the future, due to the lobbying of not only this Province - because this is for all of Atlantic Canada, and for many other areas of the country, so we are not the only Province lobbying Air Canada. This is done at the national level, by the national Ministers of Transportation, by the national Ministers of Tourism. There is a concerted effort right throughout the country to ensure that Air Canada is providing adequate service to all of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the national Transportation Minister, David Collenette, has basically thrown up his hands and said the federal government really have no responsibility in this. To say that he is lobbying for national transportation links is a bit of a joke.

The minister says that we are continuing to look at it. Anybody can sit down, look at and monitor a situation. What people are wondering is, in your own document where you say that we will continue to monitor and adopt policies where appropriate which promote and sustain a healthy competitive airline industry, what analysis have you done? If you have done any, table it. What policies have you adopted to try to counteract these important links to sustain the type of economy that we not only have, but the type of economy that we hope to have?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just trying to inject scare tactics into the Newfoundland public. He knows very well that this is a federal national initiative and this Province is not sitting idly by. I do not know if the hon. member thinks that he has a monopoly on patriotism, that he has a monopoly on working for this Province. I do not know if he thinks that he is the only one that has any initiative or any energy.

I tell the hon. member that this government is leaving no stone unturned to ensure that the national airlines is represented in this Province, that they are carrying on business in this Province. We are also encouraging our own provincial airlines to pick up whatever business they can pick up to ensure that the people of this Province have good interprovincial service and to make sure that we have connections with the mainland.

Mr. Speaker, we will not relent. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that the people of this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are provided with good air service and affordable air service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Government House Leader's political rhetoric but there are people in the Province today, not only airline employees but existing businesses - even you, in your own report, say that one of the big concerns that has come out as a result of this committee, is: air access to international connections to support business development was a recurring theme on trade and investment missions.

In other words, people that you have been associated with on trade and investment missions, Mr. Speaker, have indicated to you that one of the barriers to economic development, in this Province is air access.

I say to the minister, in your own report you say you are going to continue to monitor and adopt policies. Right now, what people are looking for is not a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants answer; it is not an autopilot sort of approach. They are looking for answers from you and your government as to what policies you are going to adopt to ensure that air access is not only maintained but improved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member that I have not been using rhetoric. I have been using sincerity, telling the people of this Province what we have been doing, telling the people that we have met with all of the stakeholders, that we have met with the airport authorities and we have met with the airlines. We haven't been sitting idly by. We have been working diligently, Mr. Speaker, and it is shown by the increase in activity by our own provincial airlines, by other airlines, national airlines, that have been coming to the Province, and more will come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The hon. member is raising unfounded fears at this moment. I want to assure the people of Newfoundland, the business community, that this government will leave no stone unturned in terms of ensuring that we are provided with adequate air access and at affordable fares, as I said before. That is the ambition, that is the goal, of this government and we are going to continue to work at doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is pretty sad when anytime you ask a question on a legitimate public policy issue, which government itself saw as so important that they put together a Cabinet Committee on it, when we ask questions about their own report and what they are doing and they can't provide the answers, we are fearmongering.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: Just a couple of moments ago in responding to one of my questions, he said: The member needs to understand this is a free market. I understand that. Let me ask the minister this: One of your recommendations or one of the policies that you either have adopted or are planning to adopt in lobbying the federal government, in lobbying the airline industry, is one of those in terms of the concept of open skies? Is that a possible solution that you and your government are looking at?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is lobbying with the federal government and with the airlines to provide the best possible service that they can provide to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, whatever policy that takes to ensure that the needs of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are addressed, we are willing to discuss these needs. We have advanced the request, we have advanced the notion, that we want this Province to be provided with adequate air service at affordable prices. That is our position, that is what we have advocated to the federal government and that is what we will continue to advocate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I think history has shown, certainly in the last several years, that if we are dependent upon the federal government and Air Canada to do what is right for this Province, then we are in sad, sad shape today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, I asked you the question, you did not answer it. I asked you a question about open skies, not opening your eyes, but, in fact, by the look of it today, that is exactly what you and your government need to do.

Are you looking at seriously a policy dealing with opening skies, which is about opening access to airlines so that our economic links to our trading partners both in the U.S. and the Eastern Seaboard and other parts of Canada are improved, and, as a result of that, maybe more flights in and out of the Province would actually occur? Is government seriously looking at that policy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked it was the federal government which had the authority to dictate aviation commercial airline policy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is the people - oh, I think the hon. gentleman indicated that if we had to wait for the federal government to do anything, we would be waiting a long time. Well, I do not know who else we should negotiate with, unless we should negotiate with Great Britain and Germany. We do not have that kind of authority. We have to negotiate with the federal government and we will continue our ongoing diligent relentless efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

In last week's Budget government committed to retaining some 218 teaching positions that would otherwise be redundant in 2003-2004. Yet, government fails to mention that the number of teachers in the Province will be reduced by some 160 teaching positions. Government continues to speak about our pupil-teacher ratio yet it does not appear that government has a plan to reduce class size. I say to the minister, the two are very different. I would like to ask the minister: How will class size be reduced in our Province, and by how much as a result of last week's announcements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question, even though I find it somewhat hypocritical coming from the same individual who was quoted in The Western Star a couple weeks ago as saying that if they were to form the government they would trim the fat that exists in bureaucratic bodies. It says it right there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: To get on to his question, Mr. Speaker, it depends on how you look at it. The Tories always look at something as the glass as being two-thirds empty rather than two-thirds full. The actual fact of the matter is, we left 218 teaching positions in our school around the Province this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Two hundred and eighteen more than the Sparkes-Williams report would have had us take out. So we are reinvesting the $12 million for those 218 teachers back into the educational system. That is how we intend to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard the concerns, even in the last few days, from board representatives, from school administrators, from classroom teachers, that despite the fact in last week's Budget we know that there are primary and elementary classes in our Province with thirty or more students in the classroom, and for some high school students well between thirty and forty, and for some high school students in excess of forty. There is overwhelming evidence, Mr. Speaker, that these number are far too high. Teachers are prevented from teaching well and students simply cannot learn in that situation.

I ask this minister a serious question in response to last week's Budget: Will the minister set, as a priority, as the Minister of the Department of Education for his department, a policy of maximizing class size? In other words, having a maximum number of students for classes at different levels, perhaps beginning with primary grades, to take effect in 2003 and 2004?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the member opposite for his question. Again, I find it hypocritical when they tout their star candidate, Ms Marshall, the one who said, like he said in Corner Brook: There is lots of fat in the bureaucracy to trim. Now today he is talking about putting some of that fat back in there. I think that is what he is saying.

Let's get on to the question. He said: If we are taking teachers out, how are we going to reduce the size of classrooms in the Province? Well, Mr. Speaker, the population of our schools, the number of students in this Province, has decreased by 6,000 in the last two years. By the time that our students go back to school in September of this year that number will have decreased by 9,000. Is the hon. member saying that we should not take one teacher out? If you are talking about classes of forty, let me tell you again, we have the lowest pupil-teacher ratio in the country. Even having taken out those 160, we still have the lowest student-teacher ratio in the country. We are dedicated to the students of our Province. The Budget that was passed here last week is prime evidence of that commitment that we make to the students of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of hypocrisy. This is an issue of reality. The district that I represent, for example, in the school district Avalon East, that particular board will lose some thirty-six teaching positions. How do this minister rationalize the fact that he can continue to boast about the lowest pupil-teacher ratio in the country when in fact he, as the minister, knows full well that there are classrooms with thirty to forty and well in excess of forty students in this Province? How does he rationalize that fact?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have to say, the hon. member on the other side always looks at the negative side. Yes, I know there are classes out there with more than fifteen students in them. I also know that there are a number of classrooms out there that have fewer than fifteen students.

Let me give you an example. He talks about classes of thirty and thirty-plus in the Province. I have a school in my district, in Change Islands, with less than fifty students. Less than fifty student. Now, keep that in mind, and he is talking about thirty and forty to a class. We have less than fifty students in that school; yet, we have eight teachers in that school. I ask you what the student-teacher ratio is in that school.

When you are talking about the number of students that are in each of the individual classes in the Province, we allocate the number of teachers to the board, not to the schools. It is up to the boards and the principals of the schools how many students they permit to go into a particular class. Like you said, if there is a class with thirty to thirty-five students in it, you will also find somewhere in that school a class with far fewer than ten.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation recently stated at a Public Accounts Committee hearing regarding the Ahelaide or the Hull 100 - or the rustbucket as I refer to it, and I quote, "We are stuck with it. The final bills are not in yet. We are just going to have to hope and pray and keep our fingers crossed that everything works out."

Mr. Speaker, government first stated the complete cost to the taxpayer to put this vessel in the system would be $3 million. It then went to $5 million, $7 million, and now upwards of $10 million. Does the minister agree with his deputy minister's statement? In light of the deputy minister's statement, will the minister now admit the costs for this vessel are out of control? And, can he give us a definite time frame when this vessel will be put in the system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the first objective that we face in the department is to ensure that we do provide adequate service throughout the Province. I am confident, as my predecessor was, and the predecessor before him, that by the time the Ahelaid is put in the water to service the people in the area where it is going, this will be an adequate vessel.

I would also say that a similar vessel would have cost us somewhere in the neighbourhood of $16 million to $18 million. At $7 million, even with the problems that we are having, it will in the end prove to be a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Hull 100 is still having major repairs and upgrading done, some four years after its purchase. Sources tell me, as large pieces of steel plates are removed, replacement pieces cannot be welded to what is left because of the rust and the condition of the vessel. Will the minister tell the House how much more money government is prepared to spend above the millions already spent and possibly wasted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, as with any vessel in the fleet in the Province, I am delighted, first and foremost, that money is being spent here in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: It is being spent to ensure the viability of a shipyard in the Province, guaranteeing work for people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to you again that when that vessel goes into service, in a matter of another two or three months, the people that vessel will service will be delighted with it at half the cost of what a brand new vessel would have been.

Mr. Speaker, the concept is to make sure that the people we are trying to serve are given the best service we possibly can. I tell you, the Hull 100, the Ahelaid, however you wish to refer to the vessel, it will do the job that we are asking for. It will meet the needs, and it will still be a bargain price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I asked, when will that vessel be put in the system, and he did not go near it.

The purchase of the Hull 100 and subsequent actions of this government with respect to this vessel are both a farce and a disgrace. Transport Canada is concerned that Newfoundland is causing Canada to become a dumping ground for substandard ferries not built in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, why did government announce a vague option to replace one ferry in this year's Budget - it is an election year, we know - and not a full vessel replacement policy which would see the Newfoundland shipyards and Newfoundland workers build the replacement vessels here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Hasn't the door been left open for the purchase of similar vessels from foreign countries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, as we move forward we will be moving with a vessel replacement program that consists of mainly and mostly - my choice - new vessels. But perhaps -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where will they be built? Here?

MR. WALSH: The vessels will be built where we can find the best quality, the best price, and preferably here in Newfoundland. I will say that when we did make our announcement in the Budget Speech, even on that one, our colleagues on the opposite side tried to steal the announcement two days ahead of us. I would love to see what your plan is for a vessel replacement program for this Province. I would love to see exactly what it is that you hope to do. But, I tell you what I will do, we will refine the statement a little more so that you can take it and hopefully build on it. Let me assure you, the vessel replacement program that we will put in place for this Province will be one that is far in extent and far in excess of what you can even imagine doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister responsible for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs. It concerns the annual caribou hunt in Labrador, particularly in the Schefferville area.

The congestion problem up there, I say to the minister, continues to get worse each year. The issue of safety and harmony is seriously compromised with too many hunters using too small an area creating an unsafe situation. Fights have almost broken out between outfitters and many threats have been issued back and forth. Things have deteriorated, I say to the minister, to the point where this is a topic of discussion at outfitter conferences in the United States where a lot of the business comes from. Mr. Speaker, this industry is very important to the economic well-being of Labrador West and the minister is also aware that these outfitting companies in the States are advising people to avoid this area.

My question to the Minister responsible for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs is: What action is he, along with his counterparts, going to take to enforce regulations, create a level playing field for all outfitters and rectify the intolerable situation that presently exists?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. ANDERSEN: The Member for Labrador West raised a question, it is one that is of a very serious nature.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two weeks I have had discussions with outfitters in Labrador West that operate in Schefferville and in other parts of Labrador. I have had discussions with the Minister of Tourism. I have had discussions with the minister responsible for wildlife protection. During the Easter break I will travel to Labrador West to meet with the outfitters there. I will have more discussions with people in the Upper Lake Melville area regarding the debris along the road and, Mr. Speaker, I will come back and consult with the Minister of Tourism, the minister of wildlife. We will even ask the Member for Labrador West for his input. Mr. Speaker, we will bring in guidelines and, if need be, we will bring in regulations to correct a very serious problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question again, supplement to the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, is in line with tourism and caribou in Labrador. The minister is quite aware, and all people of the Province are quite aware, of the terrible mess that is on the Trans-Labrador Highway with caribou remains. Some of these remains are quite huge. They have caused traffic accidents to date. They have inflected damages on vehicles travelling that highway.

My question to the minister: What is he going to do to prevent this situation, clean up for this year, and to prevent the situation from occurring in the future? I want to make clear to the minister that my information on the mess on that highway is that it is not due to local hunters in the area. It is hunters outside the Province who are mainly responsible, is the information I have. I want to ask the minister: What is he going to do about this situation and what will he do in the future to make sure that this situation does not reoccur?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem that the Member for Labrador West speaks about is of a serious nature. I have seen it firsthand. I have been provided with pictures of the remains along the side of the road. Before we start pointing fingers as to whether it is people outside the Province or inside the Province, I am going to meet with wildlife officials up there, people in the Department of Tourism, and consult with the Minister of Tourism and the minister for wildlife as to what we might do. There is a very serious problem. I think it is the last thing that we, in Labrador, who brag of a great industry we have in tourism - the last thing that we want to see is for people who come into Labrador to see this mess along the side of the road. In a short period of time we will do everything we can to try and clean up the problem that lies by the side of the road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this hon. House today to table the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to table for hon. members pursuant to the 2002 Speech from the Throne two reports on the Accountability of Public Bodies. One report speaks only to Consumer Protection Fund for Prepaid Funeral Services. The other provides information on the sixteen boards and agencies that are required to report to my department. This report highlights the annual activities of the following boards and agencies which are classified as Level III public bodies under the accountability framework: Appendix A, Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities; Appendix B, Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation; Appendix C, Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board; Appendix D, Petroleum Products Pricing Commission; Appendix E, Public Accounts Licensing Board; Appendix F, Real Estate Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time this department has tabled such reports, reaffirming the commitment of this government to being open and accountable to the public. The past two years have seen a level of accountability second to none in this country and in this Province.

Further to this, Mr. Speaker, the other ten agencies, boards and commissions, which report to my department, meet on an ad hoc basis and have not previously been required to write annual reports under their legislation. These agencies, boards and commissions have been requested to submit reports for 2002, 2003, and onwards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In keeping with the open and accountable mandate that this government governs by, I am pleased today to table the Report of 2001-2002 of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

This documents is an account of the department's business for the fiscal year.

The department is responsible for representing the Province's interest and one of our most precious resources. Our mandate is to promote and support professional and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture industries for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. This report outlines the goals, the progress and the challenges of the department, and reports on our delivery of programs and services.

In 2001, the Newfoundland and Labrador seafood industry produced products valued at over $900 million. This decline from approximately $1 billion in 2000 was due primarily to reduced shrimp landings and prices. I am pleased to say that the industry rebounded to more than $1 billion in production value in 2002.

Mr. Speaker, overall, 2001 was a very good year for our fishery notwithstanding the challenges that faced us in the cooked and peeled shrimp sector. However, we are concerned about the downward trends that have been reported in both Northern and Gulf cod fisheries in 2J+3Ps crab stocks, and that will no doubt create our biggest challenge within the coming year.

On March 17, the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on 2J3KL and 3Pn4RS Cod Fisheries presented its report to Robert Thibault, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, indicating that the closure of those cod fisheries indefinitely will be devastating news for our Province.

We, as Newfoundlander and Labradorians, are apprehensive about pending quota announcements and we will continue to push the federal government to implement the recommendations that we have presented. We also continue to monitor the consultations and recommendations presented by fishers and industry stakeholders with regard to future crab fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the department will continue to support the fishing and aquaculture industries thought its programs and services. We will continue to work with industry stakeholders on major initiatives designed to increase prosperity in the fishing and aquaculture industries.

Building on the progress of our strategic approach, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture will continue to response to the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead for us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. This is a new department that was brought in by the Premier just a few years ago. The report covers a wide variety of issues that we cover in Labrador with the Lower Churchill, Voisey's Bay, dealing with all land claims with the Aboriginal issues, and certainly acting as a liaison between all other departments as they work with the people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador are very proud that this department was created, and it is a pleasure for me to stand here today and table our first ever Annual Report for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table the 2001-2002 report for the Department of Human Resources and Employment. Included in this document, Mr. Speaker, is the report for the Social Services Appeal Board.

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House have been involved in issues related to income support as part of their constituency caseload. I know that before I became minister of this department I was always impressed with the compassion and professionalism of the management and the front line staff of HRE. My experience since becoming minister has only reinforced that view. They are to be commended for the good work they do every day in providing assistance to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we know that as the economic climate improves fewer people rely on income support. When work is available people want to work. That is why this government has placed such emphasis on improving and diversifying our economy. This government and this department is committed to a vision of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as healthy, educated and self-reliant people living in supportive communities.

Just as important, our people need to have access to social programs which encourage them to reach their full potential. This report provides a concise summary of those programs, activities and accomplishments for this department. At the same time, it is also a testament to the staff of this department who, each and every day, renew their commitment to the vision that social and economic development go hand in hand. I believe that this annual report is evidence of that commitment. I hope that all members find it helpful and informative.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Pursuant to section 28(4)(e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two Orders-in-Council for the creation of two new activities of expenditure for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, one of which relates to native people's education and another with respect to municipalities, crown corporations and the capital associated with that.

Further, Mr. Speaker, today, pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling five Orders-in-Council relating to the funding pre-commitments for the fiscal year 2003-2004.

Just briefly, Mr. Speaker: One of these is in relation to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to pre-commit funding of $1.8 million against the department's appropriations, so that we are able to facilitate the awarding of tenders for the Coastal Labrador marine shore-based infrastructure projects located at Cartwright, Postville and Black Tickle. This is very important, obviously, because we need it to be completed in time for the Labrador coastal marine services operating season.

The second is also related to the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation, to pre-commit funding of $1.5 million to facilitate the awarding of tenders for the refit of the Sir Robert Bond and the Northern Ranger, again making it necessary to have these vessels ready for the Coastal Labrador marine service operating season commencing May 1, 2003.

Also, for the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, pre-committing not to excess $1.2 million against appropriations so that we are able to procure the rabies vaccination, so that we are able to put out the appropriate vaccine baits so that we can begin the eradication program.

Further, for the Minister of Education, a pre-authorization of $4.519 million, Mr. Speaker, for the appropriation of the purchase of new textbooks. We need to do this in advance so that we are obviously able to have the prompt delivery of these textbooks for primary, elementary and secondary schools prior to September, 2003.

Finally, for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, authority to pre-commit $125,300 against appropriations of the overhaul of the R-2800 water bomber so that we are able to have the water bomber have the engine refitted and ready for the beginning of the fire season in May.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition today, Mr. Speaker, addressed: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada that does not have a downtown library in its capital city; and

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst rates of illiteracy in the country; and

WHEREAS the citizens and visitors of downtown St. John's require a downtown library for access to literature, the Internet, and a place to develop their literacy skills; and

WHEREAS the children of downtown St. John's need access to books; and

WHEREAS the Province and the city used to provide the citizens and visitors of St. John's with a downtown library;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to return the downtown library to the citizens and visitors of St. John's and to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the downtown library has adequate hours of operation, adequate staffing and adequate books.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to demand today that the Province put a library in the downtown area. What I am going to ask the government to do is to carry out a study to determine the viability of a downtown library. I am going to ask the government to determine, if there was a library in the downtown area, families that do not have adequate transportation, who cannot afford transportation to libraries in other areas of the city, would their literacy rates improve? In the long run, my belief is that their literacy rates would improve to the point that it would actually be more cost-efficient to put a library in the downtown area than to not have one there.

Government are promoting the Read and Succeed campaign, their literacy campaign, but yet there are families in the downtown area that neither have the resources to get to a library nor the ability to access a library. If there were a library in the downtown area - I am asking government to put forward a study to determine the long-term viability. My belief is, if there were a library in the downtown area, in the long run it would save government a tremendous amount of money.

I am not going to demand that they put a library in the downtown area. I am asking that they carry out a study to determine the long-term viability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is Wednesday. I will hear the petition from the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but we only have about a minute left.

MR. HARRIS: We are at 12 o'clock now. Perhaps -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to present his petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just before the House got underway, the Member for St. John's South brought part of the petition that he had and gave it to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. My question is: Is this the appropriate way to present petitions in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has asked hon. members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Do members want to continue?

The Chair has asked members, in presenting petitions to this House, to make sure that the petitions are in order. To do that, we ask them to consult with the Table officers here to ensure that the petitions are in order. Otherwise, if someone raises a point of order on a petition, and it has not been presented to the Table, then the Chair does not have much choice but to declare it out of order. However, I have not heard what the hon. member's petition is, so I would ask the hon. member to present his petition.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is quite the person to talk about petitions being presented in this House. This petition is in the exact same form as the previous petition presented by the Member for St. John's South, which both he and I were asked to present on behalf of the downtown library committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: The petitions were specifically forwarded to the Member for St. John's South to be distributed to him and me, for presentation to the House, by the St. John's downtown library committee. I am very proud to present that petition because it is something that I believe in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this petition underscores a campaign that has been going on for the past six months to a year to try and restore to this Province, the only capital city in the country without a downtown library, to have a downtown library for our citizens and for our city, for our tourism, for our visitors, for our sense of ourselves as a Province with a capital city.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to great considerable public lengths and expense to build an edifice called The Rooms, which I fully support, because it is part of us representing our culture, representing our archival history, representing our great art work to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ourselves, and also to the world.

Mr. Speaker, a downtown public library is a very important part of the cultural and intellectual life of an important city, of a capital city, like St. John's is. Important not only to the citizens of St. John's but also to the whole Province. I know, Mr. Speaker, from my own experience in living in other cities, whether they be the City of London in England, or Edmonton in Alberta, or the City of Toronto, that the public library is a centre for all sorts of activity, not just a lending library but in fact a cultural and community centre. In Edmonton, for example, Mr. Speaker, in the downtown library in Edmonton on a Sunday afternoon, the place is blocked with people who are there engaging in reading magazines, discussion groups, playing chess, listening to music, engaged in activities, students doing studies, people doing independent research. The place is a beehive of activity, Mr. Speaker, centred around activities that are important to the cultural life of the community.

A downtown public library in this Province, Mr. Speaker, would be a place where authors could do their readings. We have a plethora of authors in this Province who are producing works each year that are winning awards, that are getting readership across this country, promoting our culture, our heritage, our talent to people, and a public library is a place where these efforts are given encouragement and exposure and an opportunity for people - young people and old people and everyone - to participate in that sort of thing.

We have a library, Mr. Speaker, at the Arts and Culture Centre which is, I believe, under review for continuing in that particular location. We have a lot of activity downtown, and to have a downtown public library as part of our cultural life is very important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and I want to encourage government to look seriously at this proposal.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the hon. the Member for Gander.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in standing to today's motion, which is on the Gander Weather Office, the decision by the federal government to downsize it greatly, I would like to start the debate by not reading all of the motion but making sure for the record that we read into it the:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls for a reversal of the decision by the federal government to cut weather forecasting services at Gander.

Today, Mr. Speaker, my remarks will come mostly from the proposal that this government will be presenting, after today's debate, to the federal government, a plan for them to reverse this decision and to still meet their mandate but to keep public and marine forecasting in this Province. The comments also that I will make today, is information that we have been gathering from people all over the Province, in particular from Memorial University of Newfoundland which has a long and proud record of working in the areas of climatology, and also from meteorologists themselves who are both actually working active meteorologists and those who are retired.

Most of us would know that the Newfoundland Weather Centre in Gander dates back to the pre-war years. In fact, it started around 1938 in Botwood and shortly after that moved to the airport in Gander.

What we are talking about today is the decision on Thursday, March 13, when the Environment Minister, David Anderson, announced changes to the meteorological service of Canada whereby they were consolidating fourteen weather offices into five centres of excellence and three national services offices. As a result of these changes, Gander over the next two years is to lose its forecasting function and become a national service office with a staff of ten.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly about what is being offered to Gander. The national marine service centre proposed for Gander, after removal of all the forecast production capabilities, is, we feel, the final process in the exit program, something that the Department of Environment has been trying to do for many a long year. They have made four previous attempts.

The positions proposed for this new national marine service centre do not currently exist in any form elsewhere and many meteorologists feel that this is being totally fabricated. They say these positions are liaison type and that they will only work, it is felt, if they are co-located with centres of forecast production. They also tell me they are to do - that if they were located with informatics, with research climatology and human resources, and none of these are presently in Newfoundland and Labrador. They feel that these are fluff jobs and that these jobs will only stay as long as there are no financial difficulties. The next time there is any downsizing contemplated in the meteorological service these will be the first to disappear. They also feel the same thing about the two centres that are going in Rimouski and Kelowna.

Then, one of the issues the Premier and I talked to Minister Anderson about was the Winnipeg solution. Most of us would know that besides the five centres of excellence that are being proposed for across the country, that Winnipeg was made a branch office of the Edmonton office. Interestingly, Environment Canada has made this one exception to their master plan of co-locating weather forecast productions with their regional offices; and, of course, that exception, we all know, is Winnipeg. Winnipeg will continue to forecast for Manitoba, which is mostly a public forecast program with some seasonal marine forecasting for the larger inland lakes of that Province.

Now let's look at some of the basic statistics here. This really shows you the meaning behind all of this and the unfairness that is happening to Newfoundland. Winnipeg will be forecasting for a land and lake area of some 650,000 square kilometres, where the Newfoundland Weather Centre in Gander currently forecasts for a land and ocean area of 1,711,000 square kilometres which is two point six times the proposed Winnipeg area. Of course, Gander operates a full-time marine forecast program in addition to its public program. It is rather difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand why Gander must cease forecast production and Winnipeg carries on.

Now, Minister Anderson talked to us that, oh, while we recognize that Newfoundland has adverse weather and a vast geography like the Manitoba area, he said most of this has to do with the research capability at Winnipeg with the University of Manitoba. But, you know, as for the research facilities in both Winnipeg and the Halifax argument - which the minister gave us - traditionally, I am told, there has been very little contact between operational units and research units. One reason being, our PHDs and operational people are in the PHD area because most operational people are mostly Bachelors of Science and they operate on very different wavelengths. This will not change, so why are we promoting this falsehood? An every day comparison might be: Consider your operational weather forecaster like the general practitioner in the medical field and the university connection being the School of Medicine at Memorial or any teaching research unit.

Do you think that your family doctor in Gander or Corner Brook is any less competent or less diligent because they are not in St. John's where the School of Medicine is? Probably not. He or she may actually be far more devoted to general practice because of their commitment. As for updating ones skills, there are ample opportunities, such as: correspondence, Internet, video teleconferencing, seminars. We all know that Newfoundland leads the country and, in fact, the world in distance education. The operational forecaster is in much the same position as a doctor would be. Most of them are devoted to their practitioner work and like only casual project work which is easily performed outside a university setting.

So, I would challenge Minister Anderson to provide statistical proof that the weather forecast issued by Halifax is better or improved because of the close proximity to university and research institutions.

Much improvement in forecasting can be traced to better numeral weather prediction forecast for the local forecaster to work with. Improvements in this area have been considerable through the last three decades, but not surprisingly has slowed down as it has reached its maturity it is felt by many forecasters.

Now I would like to talk about the technology argument that the federal government is putting forward. I think many of us are getting tired of organizations continually using technology as an explanation for their decisions and there is no doubt that this is being done with this decision.

Minister Anderson in his conversation just last week with Bill Rowe on the Open Line Show - I think it was March 20 - alluded to it several times. However, we feel that Mr. Anderson was very poorly briefed on this matter. Most of the technology he spoke of was far from recent and definitely not technology of the future. A couple of examples that we should note are: equipment on aircraft, he talked about, to pick up weather. This has been around for decades. Doppler radar has been used by TV stations in the U.S.A. for over ten years, and satellite weather coverage has been available extensively since the early 1970s. In fact, many of these same technology issues were used to justify the strategic plan for Environment Canada that took place in the early 1990s that now they are dismantling again.

Technology, as Environment Canada needs, has not advanced as rapidly in the last five years as it had to the point as no one can see from the economic and geopolitical situation in the world. So, in reality, it is difficult to see what Environment Canada is reacting to, and that is scary, Mr. Speaker.

The same technology that Environment Canada forecasts also allows the reverse to be possible, that is Gander can do all of Halifax's forecasting. As a matter of fact, that is what this government proposed many months ago and, in fact, many years ago to Environment Canada.

We all know that at the moment there are no Atlantic regional offices for the federal government in our Province. There are seventeen in Nova Scotia. There are eleven in New Brunswick and there is one national office in little P.E.I. This was the first time that we saw a really good, strong argument that this should be the Atlantic forecast centre for all of Atlantic Canada. It is very obvious that we were not listened to.

We know that forecasting, where the forecaster is the closest to where the action is, is the most valuable type of forecast. As we know, in this Province we have many local events of severe weather that are often identified by local studies, such as the Wreck House winds in southwestern Newfoundland that all of us would know about. This is just one example of how local knowledge is important and illustrates that forecasting from Halifax will not give Newfoundland and Labrador a more accurate forecast.

I think we should also comment on some other things that Mr. Anderson said. Mr. Anderson claimed that the reorganization and restructuring of the meteorological service will bring greater accuracy to local forecasts, but he has not provided any evidence of this. If he has not, why should we proceed until we know that it will, in fact, give greater accuracy? He also makes the very naive assumption that the important local knowledge possessed by the forecasters in Gander will be transferred to Halifax by moving the Gander staff to Halifax. To do this, he is assuming that everyone from the Gander office wants to move to Halifax and stay there ad infinitum. Forecasters who have previously worked in Gander now work all across this country. They are not all concentrated in Halifax, and this group of forecasters are not likely to want to do the same. I think this is gullibility at its finest.

Mr. Anderson belittles weather forecasters by saying they check the precipitation, wind, barometer and then they come up with a forecast. Mr. Speaker, it was never that way. Weather forecasting has always been at the forefront of science and technology. Mr. Anderson has confused observing and forecasting. Mr. Anderson, obviously, does not want to talk about the Winnipeg situation when asked about other places in Canada where the department related to complaints. Because we know that this service is so invaluable to our fishermen and women who spend, many times, several days or if not weeks at sea and they require weather information beyond the customary two days. During the fishing season in this Province, normally which would be early spring until late fall, it is not uncommon for forecasters at the Newfoundland Weather Centre in Gander to handle fifty to seventy calls a day. In Halifax they handle about one to two calls a day and that is the standard across the country.

During the winter season most calls concern storms and their affect on school closings and travel plans. In order to give proper service to these calls forecasters must have good local knowledge of local meteorology and geography.

Environment Canada has not consulted with any stakeholders about this. In particular, this Province and the public here. We know that there have been four times they have tried to make this decision in the past. I want to make one quote that in 1997, the last time the decision was reversed, this is what was said by Bill Appleby, Regional Director for Atlantic Canada. He said, "Due to concerns that have been expressed in Newfoundland, Environment Canada has changed its plans to produce all the marine forecasts for Atlantic Canada from the Maritimes Weather Centre in Halifax. Instead, marine meteorologist specialist positions will be re-established at the Newfoundland Weather Centre in Gander and these positions will continue to produce the marine forecast for Newfoundland Waters."

That was recognized in 1997 as a mistake, and we must insist that it is recognized again. This just does not make any sense at all. We have pages of facts and figures which show that this should not be so, and we will continue to make sure that it is not so.

Ice forecasting is practically all done from this Province but guess where the centre of excellence is? It is in Ottawa. Nobody is talking about moving it to Newfoundland and Labrador where most of the ice exists.

The Mayor of St. John's and others have pointed out that these actions today are contrary to the spirit and the intent of the Atlantic Accord, which requires that it shall establish in the Province, where possible, regional offices with appropriate levels of decision making for all departments directly involved in activities relating to the offshore area. The met office in Gander certainly relates to that.

The federal government's announcement has met with very strong opposition in this Province. A committee in Gander, headed by the Mayor, Claude Elliott, has been working long and hard on this. There is a petition going around the Province. All of us see on a daily basis letters of concern to the editor and much discussion on the Open Line show.

In summary, the proposal that would see public and marine forecasting maintained at Gander would require no new equipment in Gander. It would be pretty well cost-effective from the perspective that, whether it is in Halifax or Gander, it would require the same amount. We propose to put research links in with Memorial, that they are very interested in. They have already presented a letter of support and a very detailed plan on meteorological research that they would like to do with Gander. Also, this could be extended to Dalhousie University.

To move the forecast production to Halifax certainly will not create savings but it will cause a huge problem for weather forecasting for this Province. We need the local knowledge and, not only that, we need these very important jobs in our Province. The experience of moving the local forecasters is a definite downgrade for Newfoundland and Labrador.

This proposal that we will present to the government will allow the federal government to meet its mandate to provide excellence in forecasting, maintain a forecasting function and presence in this Province, and take advantage of the climate related research taking place at our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to implore the federal government to again change this position and to make sure that the weather forecasting service for this Province in the marine and public area stays right here in Newfoundland and Labrador where it belongs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak on this motion before the House today concerning the changes in the Gander Weather Office. In fact, the gutting of the weather forecasting services.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member opposite on her speech. It was a very good speech, very well researched, a lot of detail, a lot of information, and brought out all the relevant facts in terms of why the Gander Weather Office should stay there. We know them well. We know the importance of weather forecasting being done in this Province because of the nature of our weather systems, the requirements of local information, and the fact that the weather can change very quickly from one hour to the next has very, very important and, in fact, life-determining consequences for so many of our people who depend on accurate and timely weather forecasts to go about their business, whether it be driving on our roads or more dangerously engaged in the fishing industry or marine activities all around our Province. It is very important that we do have a proper on-the-ground, on-site weather forecasting facility in this Province. The Gander Weather Office has preformed a valued service of that nature for many, many years and, of course, recognized by the weather forecasting experts as being necessary and vital that it be done here locally.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very good speech. We certainly support the motion, and we will vote in favour of it, as I am sure all hon. members here will. Unfortunately, all of this logic, all of this good sense, and all of this valid and vital information, is coming after the Government of Canada has made a decision, after the Government of Canada has done, once again, what it has done in many other areas - centralize a service, ignore the needs of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, treat the four Atlantic Provinces as if they were one entity that is centered in Halifax.

Mr. Speaker, what really has happened is that this government has let them get away with it. This is after the fact. After the fact, we have a terrific presentation. I compliment the member who was the minister responsible for representing Gander in Cabinet. I compliment her on her information, but why is it we have to have this resolution at all?

The Government of Canada made a decision to go from fourteen weather forecasting centres to five. Included on that list was Manitoba, and Winnipeg was going to be removed, but they did not let it happen. They managed to stop it. The Government of Manitoba, and the people of Winnipeg and their representatives in the House of Commons stopped the changes from taking place in the City of Winnipeg. They are not a Liberal government. The Government of Manitoba is an NDP government. An NDP government in Manitoba was sitting there. They challenged the decision in a timely fashion and got the decision changed for the City of Winnipeg. They now have forecasting in Winnipeg. The representatives in the Parliament of Canada for Winnipeg and Manitoba fought against that decision and made sure that it was changed.

What I want to know, and what we should really hear from the other side, is why it is that we got some assurances last fall that this is going to be fixed, that this problem is resolved, that this is not even a problem, that there are some plans afoot but we have managed to forestall them, and we hear from the federal minister and federal representative in Cabinet and others who are talking about it, that this problem is in hand. This government treats it as if it is some sort of surprise sprung at them at the last minute.

Mr. Speaker, that is the explanation that we need to hear from the other side; how this was allowed to happen, how this government, with their own government in Ottawa, could see this happen without there being a major, major public fuss long before it was implemented, long before it was announced. Mr. Speaker, did they not see this coming or were they led down the garden path by someone in Ottawa, to suggest that this wasn't going to be a problem, or were they asleep at the switch? That is the question that has to be answered, Mr. Speaker.

We can all get up here in this House and make speeches about the problems that Newfoundland has in terms of dealing with Ottawa, decisions that are made, et cetera, et cetera. We can all do that, but that is the cry of the impotent, Mr. Speaker. Those are the people who can't solve the problems, who can't address the issues. This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that has been in office for fourteen years. This is a government whose party holds the seat of power in Ottawa. This is a government that should have some influence on the decisions that are being made in Ottawa.

The very logical, the very competent, I would go so far as to say, the very competent, logical, well-researched, sensible arguments that were just put forth by the Member for Gander are the ones that should have prevailed in the corridors of power in Ottawa, if this government was doing a proper job. If they weren't going to prevail, Mr. Speaker, instead of having an after-the-fact petition and a committee headed by the Mayor of Gander, fine gentleman as he is - but an after-the-fact petition from the people of Central Newfoundland and complaints by this government after the fact are no substitute for a timely intervention by a provincial government of this Province.

What really needs to happen, Mr. Speaker, is some explanation from this government as to why this was allowed to happen in the case of the Gander weather office and why the people of Manitoba and the Government of Manitoba and the MPs from Manitoba were able to forestall that decision and change the government's plan so that there is forecasting done in the City of Winnipeg.

I agree with the former minister, the Member for Gander, that the excuses being offered by Minister Anderson don't hold water. This is nonsense about access to research facilities. There are very competent research facilities in this Province. We have communications second to none in terms of knowledge exchange, knowledge communications, Internet access, Broadband, two systems running across the Province, access everywhere to all sorts of scientific information, a major university, in fact the largest university in the Atlantic Provinces is in this Province with major areas of research in all fields of science, arts and medicine.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are just excuses. They are not reasons, they are just excuses. Really, Mr. Speaker, what we need to hear is why this government wasn't able to be effective in making this happen and why this was allowed to happen without an effective campaign, a public campaign, before the decision was allowed to be made, instead of waiting until after the fact and now asking the minister to change his mind, which he has already said he is not going to do.

I know the Premier and the Member for Gander visited him in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago and were told, point blank, that he is not going to change his mind, that his mind is made up. So, Mr. Speaker, I accept that the member has very logical and sensible and commonsense arguments, but what is missing is any political understanding of what the problem is and how this government proposes to solve that problem at the political level, because this is a political problem. It is a political problem that this government has failed to confront properly and has failed to resolve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure today to rise and support the resolution presented by the hon. Member for Gander. I would just like to have a few words about the resolution and the importance, Mr. Speaker.

We realize in Central Newfoundland today that the weather station is very important for all the people around the Province, especially for the fisherpeople who go out on the water every day and need to know exactly what the weather conditions are going to be. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the federal government, Environment Canada, would let such an important issue as this be taken out of Gander and put into Halifax. The few jobs that are involved in the weather station in Gander are a lot more important to Newfoundland than they would be to Nova Scotia. These jobs are very good jobs, high paid jobs, and they probably go unnoticed in Nova Scotia; but here in Newfoundland we need every job we can get to maintain not only the lifestyle of our people but to provide that very important service.

Mr. Speaker, as we go around the Province today we can talk to a lot of people who avail of this service, like pilots and outdoors people who rely a lot on the weather conditions. I remember back in 1977 when I first took my pilot's licence in Gander, the importance of the weather to people like that who need to know every day, to plan their day, to plan what they are going to be doing for the day or the week. They need to know exactly what the weather conditions are. I think, because we are so close to these conditions right here in the Province, we need the information to come from the Province. This information can probably come from anywhere in the world because of the technology.

The minister had a very good speech on the different issues pertaining to why it should stay there. It was a good job she did and I would just like to support her on that, because anybody who is dealing with the outdoors and dealing with the oceans here in the North Atlantic, we are surrounded by water here, we need these conditions announced publicly right from people who are experienced right here in the Province.

Even in my family, my niece worked with Environment Canada and the weather station in Gander, and she just got transferred to Ontario, but this type of work is important for our young people in this Province. We must lobby the federal government, lobby Mr. Anderson and our federal MPs. I know Rex Barnes, our MP for Gander-Grand Falls has been on this issue and he has been very energetic in going around, having meetings, and doing what he could do to try to force Environment Canada and the minister to have another look at this, to make sure that this service stays right here in the Province. Me, being next door to Gander, sort of gives me some interest in trying to support the community of Gander, too, because all of Central Newfoundland depends on each other. What happens in Gander affects what happens in Grand Falls-Windsor, and vice-versa. We always come together to fight for each other in Central Newfoundland. Sometimes we are going to have to depend on the government, and other members and ministers throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that as much pressure as possible can be put on this issue to make sure that it stays in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, I remember even back years ago, Gander was such an important place for travel, air travel in the world. It was called the Crossroads of the World. If Gander was good enough to be the Crossroads of the World back then, Gander should be good enough now to keep this service there and keep the people employed there.

If we do not do this now, then, as the minister said, there is 1.7 million square miles of area that is affected by this station. If you look at the maps of Newfoundland and see all the small communities right around the coastline, the people in these communities pay a lot of attention to the weather forecast. Even people who do not go out on the water, do not even go out of their houses, still their big thing in the day is listening to the weather forecast to see what the conditions are going to be for the day, Mr. Speaker. Some of these people may just even want to go in to cut their firewood, but the weather conditions are always important because we do not want to have any disasters, any situations where people who use our outdoors, use our resources, our water resources and other types of resources in the Province, not having the confidence that they have now. They have a lot of confidence in the reporting from the weather station in Gander. They can use their time in this Province with the confidence of knowing the weather forecasting is correct. I am not saying that it would not be correct from any other place in Canada, but this technology that we have to do this can be done here. The jobs are very important for here.

Why are we going to sit by and not do anything? We all should be making our voices very clear on the importance of this staying here, and supporting the provincial government and the Member for Gander, giving her all the support that we can give her to make sure that this station stays in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, how can this happen? How can this be? Up until now - what has happened for this station to go? I know Rex Barnes, and as I said earlier, was on this issue, but we need the other MPs. We need all the MPs in the Province supporting Rex Barnes, supporting the Member for Gander. We need all the support we can get to put the pressure on Minister Anderson and Environment Canada. Hopefully, very soon the Government of Canada will have another look at this, come back and say, yes, we agree, this is a very important issue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a very important issue for the people of Gander, a very important issue for the users of the forecasting in this Province, and that they would say yes, we will change this, change our minds and keep this in Gander for the services like the Air Search and Rescue Unit and the forest fire fighting units, the air services for the provincial government that are in Gander. These people use this reporting every day. If Gander is a good enough place to have Air Search and Rescue, provincial forest fire air services and other air services in the Province, right in the crossroads of the world, if that is good enough for that, then it is good enough to keep this weather station in Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the speaking on it, but I would just like to say that I am certainly in support of this resolution. All the people on this side, all my colleagues on this side are supporting this resolution, and let the Member for Gander know that we are out there fighting to give you support to make sure this is resolved.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I understand the agreement is that I will close the debate on this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased we are to have the support of hon. members with respect to this private member's resolution, the Member for Gander, in asking the federal government to reverse its decision with respect to the weather forecasting station at Gander.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any decision made by any federal government that is more illogical, lacks more sensitivity, than this particular decision by the federal government.

Now the hon. Member for Quidi Vidi was making the suggestion that maybe we were not as engaged as the government for Manitoba. Well, I want to dispel that myth. This government has been actively involved in trying to promote the Gander weather forecasting station as a centre of excellence or as the capital, if you will, of weather forecasting, the chief weather forecasting centre in Atlantic Canada. This has been done on a number of occasions. I will cite for hon. members the specific representations that were made by the provincial government. In July, 1993, it was proposed that Gander be made the aviation forecast centre for Atlantic Canada. In February, 1994, following the downsizing that was proposed for Gander, again the proposal was made that Gander be made a chief site for forecasting. In July of 1996 it was proposed again, and it was done again in 1997.

In my own case, after numerous meetings with federal ministers urging and requesting a greater federal presence in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, at no time was it ever mentioned to me the federal government's intention to downgrade the weather forecasting facility at Gander. Neither was it made to any of the other ministers who on many, many occasions spoke to the federal ministers. Nobody ever indicated that such action was being taken by the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that many of the MPs were blind sided on this issue as well. For four specific periods the provincial government made specific recommendations and up until January, later than that, we were assured that everything was okay in Gander. So, I say to the hon. member first of all, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did everything that the Government of Manitoba did. The difference was that they ignored the request of the provincial government. The reasons they gave for setting up a special service centre in Winnipeg - one would think were identical to the reasons why they should have made Gander a similar facility to that in Winnipeg. The reason why they stated for Winnipeg was the fact that it had a rather complex weather system.

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador had a very unique and complex weather system. I do not have much of a science background, Mr. Speaker, but in getting my undergraduate degree, back in those days, one had to complete a science course; one science course I had to complete. Having graduated in Gambo, back in those days, we did not have many science facilities in the school at Gambo. I was rather weak, scientifically, with any science courses. So I was looking for what I thought was a cinch course, as we called them in those days, to get my science. I did not want to get into chemistry or biology. I was not interested because I was going on in the arts and I was not into science at all. The word around was that geology was a real easy course, but passed as a science course.

So I took the course and, Mr. Speaker, one thing I never forgot, one part of the course that we all had to do was a major paper and a presentation. I always thought I could do fairly well on that so I looked for that to get this major paper. The topic I took - I don't know, I would expect that it is treasured at Memorial University right now. I expect the written assignment is still there if one were to inquire. It was entitled the effect of cyclones on climate in Newfoundland and Labrador. I expect at that time it just said Newfoundland. The effect of cyclones on forecasting climate in Newfoundland; on forecasting weather conditions. Well, it was the first time that I realized how difficult it was. I have often wondered that, because back in those days we were not as accurate as we are today and people had some very nasty words to say about the weather forecast. It was never correct; never right. Wrong more times than it was right.

I found out from that paper how difficult it was to forecast accurately the weather in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had many interviews with meteorologists at the airport here and I became an expert, almost, on why it was difficult because of our geographic location, and it is the best course I have ever done. It is the only thing I can remember from any course I have ever done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Well, cyclones in the geological sense. It was just the winds, basically - and I, too, did not realize we had cyclones, but we do. At least the windstorms that we have can be classified as cyclones.

So, Mr. Speaker, being situated where we are with the Labrador Gulf Stream coming down from the north and the St. Lawrence stream, and the streams from the south, all of these mixing together make it very, very difficult to forecast weather in Newfoundland.

That was the case. I learned that back in the 1960s, how difficult it was to forecast the weather in Newfoundland, and I do not expect anything has changed at all since then. The circumstances that made our weather difficult to forecast are still in existence today. There is not a province in the country, not a province in Canada that depends more on the weather than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would expect there is not a group of people in Canada that talk more about the weather than Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because we were engaged in the fishery and the wind was so important to our forefathers.

I do not know about hon. members present, but I know my father, every morning he would get up - when he was home he would look out the window and see which way the smoke was going. He would say the wind is blowing northwest this morning, or northeast, and I would mutter - I did not have a clue. I would mutter to myself: what difference does it make which way it is blowing, I still have to go to school. But these people, to them the wind was very important. The direction of the wind and the weather forecast. We have had it in the fisheries everyday and we still have it now; the forecast everyday. It is amazing the number of people who listen to the forecast, not connected with the fishery. It is a part of our culture. It is a part of our heritage.

If the federal government really wanted to do something for Newfoundland and Labrador, you did not need a Red Book. You did not need a Blue Book. You did not need any kind of book at all. If there was something the federal government wanted to do for Newfoundland and Labrador and make us a centre of excellence and demonstrated sensitivity and its response to the needs of the people of this Province, how easy it was. How easy it was to make Gander a centre of excellence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: A place that has been forecasting the weather for practically six generations. It is synonymous with the weather in Newfoundland and in many parts of Atlantic Canada. Mr. Speaker, it was so easy. It was so simple if the federal government wanted to do that. If they wanted to show that they were doing something for Newfoundland and Labrador, and with ample justification, with ample reason. It did not happen. Is it little wonder that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have become so distraught, so distressed, so aggravated by recent actions of the federal government, and this being the one that compounds the whole situation.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. Member for Gander for presenting this resolution and I thank hon. members opposite for their support. I would hope that the support will be generated right throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador so that the federal government will be moved and forced to look at the proposal that the hon. Member for Gander and our Department of Intergovernmental Affairs is making to the federal minister. I want to assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, worked hard and diligently in terms of trying to protect and enhance the Gander weather forecasting facility.

I just want to conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that Memorial University works in the area of meteorology. One would expect that. One is not surprised by the fact that Memorial University would have some skills, would have some expertise in this area, right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. I understand there are two faculties at Memorial that engage in weather forecasting, marine activity. Again, what a great opportunity that the federal government missed to work in co-operation with Memorial University, so that they could take advantage of the expertise and the skill that we have at Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I just to conclude by again assuring the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Gander and surrounding area that this government does not intend to let up on this issue. We intend to push and pursue in hopes that the federal government will be responsive to the very reasonable request of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

I declare the resolution carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to ask Your Honour if he would move to Order 2, which is a motion for Committee of Supply, where we will debate the Estimates, the Consolidated Fund Services, the Legislature and Executive Council.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

Order 2 , Estimates, Consolidated Fund Services, Legislature and Executive Council.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to begin discussion on Executive Council and the overview on the Budget Estimates that are discussed here through the Legislature. Of course, I do want to highlight a few things before we get started.

As members opposite would see, or those that have a copy of the Estimates, in the Budget that was prepared last year there was actually $830,000 less spent than budgeted. As you know, the almost $1 million less in expenditure is due to the measures that we put in place last year to put in overall controlling expenditures to try to do our part, like all other departments, of course, with the exception of Health and Justice, which did not come under the 8 and 5 per cent rule.

Also, I would like to say that this year's Budget has increased over last year's Budget by approximately $3 million. The rationale for that, I would like to speak to for just a few minutes as part of our overview. I would anticipate that there will be specific questions as we go through. I would like to speak specifically to the issues around the whole Budget and why the overall estimate amount is higher this year.

First of all, it is important to note that with our public sector wage increases of 5, 5 and 5, this is the last year of that particular collective agreement. So, most of our salary votes, of course, have increased by approximately 5 per cent, to be exact 5.06 per cent, over and above last year's expenditures. Of course, that would account for almost $700,000 on the baseline budget from last year to this year.

Also, I think, which is important to note, is that this year we have allocated almost $1 million, $910,000, to upgrade our Oracle software program. For the people of the Province, this is the software program that we use to do our public accounts. We use it to print the cheques, all of the cheques of government, whether they are social assistance cheques. This isn't the program that actually does the calculations, but it is the program that prints all of the cheques for government, including social assistance cheques. It allows us to do all of our inventory. It allows us to verify and go through the process of any kind of exchange that goes through government. So, that is our main system. It is called the Oracle system. It is quite old and outdated and really we have no choice but to upgrade it. In fact, this year we will spend $910,000 on that. Next year, again, we will have no choice but to finish that at about another $1.1 million. It is a $2 million upgrade. So that accounts, right now, for about $2.7 million of the $3 million that shows as an increase this year over last year.

In addition, we have increased the number of positions, which I am quite proud of, for our Opening Doors Program. As people know, this is a program that is designed to create employment for people with disabilities. This is a program that used to be housed out in the various departments and government was not pleased at the appropriate hiring practices that were occurring, in that many times people with disabilities were not being hired. We are quite proud of the fact that right now we have seventy-one people working within our government departments, persons with disabilities, who are making fantastic contributions. I believe it is a program that we want to make sure that it continues to grow. In addition to that, we know that we will receive less revenue as well for excise tax refunds. I can speak to that a little bit later as well.

Over and above last year's budget allocation, the bulk of the increase that we have identified has been to upgrade our current computer system, which requires as being necessary for the public accounts of the Province, for all of our financial transactions and for the printing of cheques. Also, our wage and salary increases and, of course, additionally I think it is important to note that there is an increased allocation of $700,000 for the Royal Commission to complete its mandate, which is expected this particular June. That brings, of course, a total of $3 million for that Royal Commission.

In addition to that - and this is a very important initiative for us - we know that over the next coming years, four to five years, we will be losing about 4,200 people from our public service. We have put in place a program right now whereby we are going to be looking at human resource management initiatives. Two components, one around direct hiring of new graduates particularly in hard to fill areas. The second component is on employee training at all levels, from front line all the way up to middle managers and also senior executives.

Madam Chair, that accounts for the overview of the overall increase. I would be happy to answer questions from the member opposite.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am going to try to follow it in the order of numbers here with reference to any particular questions. I know the first one is Government House. I am going to skip by that one because my colleague from Bonavista South is very interested in that one. In due course, he will have an opportunity to ask some revealing questions I am sure on some aspects there.

Items under the Premier's Office; it lists the projected salary in the Premier's Office for this year of $981,000. The salary detail booklet, on page 9 of that, shows that there are fifteen employees making up the salary there in the Premier's Office. The total in the salary detail booklet shows that there are $899,353 showing specifically in the salary detail. Normally, I guess, I am assuming that they are permanent employees. I am just drawing a conclusion. I would like the minister to answer that; the remaining $83,000, I would like to know what that is being used for in this particular year as opposed to the positions listed out.

The positions listed out in the Departmental Salary Details book are: the Premier, the Chief of Staff, Director of Communications, Senior Policy Analyst, Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, Assistant Chief of Staff, Executive Assistants, there are two. By the way, there are two Directors of Communication. There are also, in addition to Executive Assistants, there is: a Special Assistant, a Director of Administration and Finance in the Premier's Office, a Secretary to the Chief of Staff, Administrative Assistant, Receptionist. So that is fifteen positions listed there. Could the minister elaborate on the difference there between the Salary Details and the particular total Budget that is listed here in the Estimates?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to point out that this salary allocation accounts for fifteen permanents. As you know, in all of government recordings only permanent staff are actually identified. It also includes temporary assistants, any overtime, as well as a car allowance, which all members are entitled to in the House of Assembly.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

So you are saying temporary assistants are included in the difference in that extra $83,000, and a car allowance which is an allowance that is included for ministers, and any overtime is included in that also. That is the three categories of breakdown.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Four categories.

MR. SULLIVAN: And the fourth one?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Permanent.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is permanent in that extra too, besides the fifteen. Fifteen permanent and three other categories.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Right, you said three others. There are four under that salary budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly, but I am indicating other than what is in the Salary Details booklet. There are fifteen permanents there. There are three other categories that make up the difference.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: How much of that would be in temporary staff or temporary assistants? How much money out of that extra $83,000 have you budgeted for temporary staff in the Premier's Office, and how many might be normally budgeted in that particular amount?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, according to our Estimates, we only have the permanent positions and we have the allowance. The actual amounts for overtime and temporary assistants is not provided in this report, but I would be certainly happy to provide any of that information in terms of the breakdown.

You will notice, for any of our votes in any government department we never include - I think it is important for the people of the Province to know, while this is the only section that is done as part of the committee, as part of the House of Assembly, no other component of government includes the breakdown of temporaries, overtime, et cetera, as part of the Budget Estimates. So this is no different than any other department. I will endeavour to get that, I say to the minister, and I am sure maybe other departments would as well. But we have put in our budgetary items -

MR. FITZGERALD: He is not a minister yet, but he soon will be.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Sorry, you are right. He is not a minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, I want to apology for that mistake.

I will say to the member opposite, again, as he would know, in absolutely all of the departments of government there is never a breakdown in temporary, for obvious reasons. Some people work for six weeks; some people work for eight weeks. Anybody over a certain period of time is posted. So it is a very complex process. This is not a specific exemption. This is a normal exemption applied right across all parts of government.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was not looking for a breakdown necessarily in the number of temporaries. Out of that $83,000, my understanding is that car allowance is about $8,000. I am not sure if that has increased proportionally with the increase. It is still at $8,000, I think, which would leave about $75,000 to be split between overtime and temporaries. I am wondering what number was plugged in for temporaries. Was it $30,000, $40,000, $50,000? Could you give us the breakdown? If you have three categories there must be a breakdown for temporaries and a breakdown for overtime.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: As I said when he asked the previous question, normally departments do not have the breakdowns for temporary assistants and overtime. I will endeavour to get that for you, as I said in the previous answer to the question you asked. That I would certainly endeavour to provide that information on the various breakdowns of both the temporary assistants and the overtime.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

So, the minister is basically saying that really what she does have now is just two categories, I guess, the car allowance category and the other two. You just have the one figure there basically for them, the overtime and the temporary amount. Because the Salary Details book lists $899,353 and, of course, this Estimates lists $981,000. That is a difference of approximately $83,000, rounded off. In that $83,000, $8,000 for a car allowance, that leaves $75,000. So, out of the $75,000, if I understand the minister correctly, she is stating that this $75,000 - you have not broken it down into overtime. For example, it is $30,000 and temporary is $45,000 or $25,000 and $50,000. Would I be correct in that the minister does not have a breakdown of how much for each of these areas?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

No, I can say that you are not correct. I did not say I did not have it. I said I did not have it with me as part of the Estimates, and I would endeavour to provide it because any part of this documentation for all departments is based on the breakdowns normally of permanent positions. I would be happy to endeavour to provide that. But, do I have it right here on my sheet at the moment? I do not because it is not part of the Estimates. It is over and above the Estimates and I would be happy to provide it when I receive it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hopefully, the minister would be able to get back on that particular - with the breakdown there, maybe when we resume debate, I guess, under this on another day.

Under Employee Benefits; in the last fiscal year, 2002-2003, there was a budget of $2,500 under Employee Benefits and an expenditure of $500. What would have accounted for that? Because we are budgeting again $2,500. What would be the difference in $2,000? Why would that have happened?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, as I said in my opening comments, last year overall this whole section reduced its budget by almost $1 million. One of the ways it did that was by - if you look at what this actually means, this category is a sign for membership and also conference registration fees. I would make the statement that fewer conferences and fewer registration fees were used last year. What it does show is that this particular component in the Premier's Office was an allocation. It was not all spent and, as a result, it went back into the general revenue. Our best advice is that put the same allocation there again this year. We do not know what conferences may come up that may be very important, or what kind of fees may be required. If it is not used, it will be put back in CRS. If it is used, it will be used very wisely. You can see that this account was budgeted at $2,500 and only $500 was spent but the allocation remains at $2,500.

Traditionally we have not decreased the votes or the actual headings and allocations because not all of the money was utilized. We give people the opportunity to manage, make decisions, and, if the need is there, they have the ability to fill that need. So far it looks as though it has been spent responsibly.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The reason I asked was because the number, even though the budget overall in this category changed and went down, the salary items did not, or the number of employees stayed exactly as budgeted. That is why I asked, where employee benefits was one-fifth of that but the salaries were the same. The same number of employees, I assume, that you budgeted, the same amount of money paid out in salaries. The minister indicated that it was put back in again in the event that a decision might need to made to use that.

One particular area that has changed is under 03.Transportation and Communication. That is basically, I guess, Premier's travel in that particular area. Being Chair of Public Accounts we have just come through, I guess, dealing with that issue under Protocol and under Premier's travel, traditionally what has been happening since 1989. We asked questions in Public Accounts. In 1989, the policy started with the Premier moving his travel out of the Premier's Office and putting it under Protocol and then it was farmed out to every department, almost, every single department. That is in the records of our Public Accounts, and it was being shipped out to every department. The Premier's travel could be under the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It could be under the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Not only was in under minister's travel in other departments; it was also under other line items in other departments, which was spread so thin it was almost impossible to track the Premier' travel in terms of the amount.

That is one of the particular areas of concern that we expressed. I know that I expressed it in Public Accounts also that all Premier's travel should come under Premier's travel, whether he travels for a fishery purpose or whether he travels for a works, service and transportation purpose. If he goes to Ottawa, Halifax, whether it is on tourism, wherever it is, a meeting of Atlantic Premiers or New England Governors, it should be under Premier's travel and it should not be hidden in all other departments. It should not be hidden under human resources and employment, for example. It should be put in one specific area.

Now, I understand that this figure of $375,000 is the figure for the Premier's travel. Would that be the Premier's Office travel only? Am I correct now in assuming that after the Auditor General's report that this was happening, and statements by your officials in Public Accounts, that it is now under the Premier's Office and that is where it all comes from? Can we feel secure in saying that all travel now by the Premier of this Province will come under this item in the Budget and not under other items?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it is important to note that the allocation last year was for $380,000 for the Premier's travel. That was reduced by $130,000. Not all of the travel that was budgeted was used.

I also want to point out that as soon as Premier Grimes was made aware by the Auditor General of the concerns around previous premiers' travel particularly being allocated into different departments, immediately - notwithstanding the fact that it was in the middle of a year - those changes were made immediately. So this has been the practice now for almost two years. I can assure all those listening that the allocation for travel is the full allocation. There is none awarded to any other department or any other component of anything related to government, except for what you see right here. That is the full allocation.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I might add, though, it was. One of the members sitting on the committee asked a question that, after February 2001, were there any charges to that in other accounts when the Premier took office? Now after the Premier took office, several months after, of course, there were charges in other areas. I have been informed by officials - and all this is in the records of Public Accounts - that they were reverted from those departments after they were informed it was happening there. Now this has been a repeated practice. We had put it on the agenda back, I think it was May or March of last year we decided that this would be an issue for Public Accounts to look at it. We did discover that things were moved back. The purpose, I guess, of Auditor General reports and dealing with things in Public Accounts - I know sometimes it is after the fact in Public Accounts - basically, it is to stop the practice and to correct it.

The minister tells us now that any travel the Premier does would be the $375,000 that is here in the particular Budget. Are there any extraordinary items of travel that are projected to happen in this particular allotment, I ask the minister? Is it basically generalities and there are no extraordinary or exceptional areas that are known, we will say, beforehand that are budgeted, or it just based on past history of what is required for travel in the Premier's Office?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I would point out that the allocation and what is spent are two different numbers. The budget that has been allocated for Premier's travel is the only budget, and in terms of anything extraordinary, the only thing would be, of course, continued pursuance of the Gull Island project, the Lower Churchill, and other work and travel associated with the role of the Premier as it relates to Atlantic Premiers' Conference meetings, First Ministers' meetings, and all the normal activities that would occur.

I would also like to take the opportunity to answer a previous question with respect to the breakdown of temporary assistants and overtime for the Premier's Office. Temporary and other employees $42,800; overtime $8,000; and the kind of adjustments, of course, that are required with respect to salary increases would also be included in those numbers and that would give you your full amount of $981,000. Plus, there is an allocation for $30,847 for permanent and other adjustments, and that includes your wage increases and all the piece. So that would give you your full amount to the penny of $981,000.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

With reference to Transportation and Communications still there, with a freeze, and there is no spousal travel, I understand, that is the policy, why wouldn't the budget go down significantly in this area if spouses' travel is eliminated? Why would it be up to the same level as it was when the policy existed for spousal travel?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I can say is that I know we have made a rule about no spousal travel. I am not sure what your rule is, but I know that was the rule certainly for all of government members and for spouses of Cabinet ministers.

I will say that if the member opposite - he knows this because he is looking at the numbers, but what the member opposite knows is that all of the allocation was not used last year for Premier's travel, even with spousal travel able to be conducted.

So what I would say to the member, and I said at the beginning in my opening comments, many of the amounts that are allocated for the various categories in a budget were not all spent last year, but what we have seen is that there has been responsible spending. For example, under Employee Benefits an allocation of $2,500 was made last year and only $500 was spent.

I just got through explaining that the same allocation is there, $2,500, because these amounts have been spent accordingly as needed. In some years they are much higher and in other years they are lower. In this particular case, the allocation last year was made of $380,000 and the Premier, in his travel, spent $250,000. This year it is down to $375,000. Travel is spent as required, but there is no reason to think that you would lower it or increase it; you would leave the amount and allow the travel.

You asked me, are there any special requirements for the Premier? No, there are no special requirements other than the work of the Premier, and anything may come up. We believe that is a reasonable allocation. If you look at all the other votes, you can see that many of them are the same in terms of no reductions.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Last year, the Premier spent $250,000 on travel, including spouse. This year there is no spousal travel and the budget is $375,000. The question I am asking the minister is: Why do we need $125,000 more for the Premier's travel this year when we are not including spouses, when spouses were included last year and still they did it $125,000 cheaper? Why do need another $125,000 for travel when we are not including spouses? Last year, it was $125,000 less with spouses included. Can you explain the huge difference?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will say it again. There was an allocation last year of $380,000 and $250,000 was spent. Why? Because it was spent on travel that was deemed appropriate and necessary. Just because there is a budget of $375,000 does not mean it is all going to be spent. The member opposite knows this. This is political whatever you call it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will just use the previous example.

It is foolishness. I agree with members here who make the same comments because I would say these are very important issues, but you also have to respect the fact that you are talking about the Premier's Office, and the Premier of our Province, who has to have an ability to travel to conduct the business of the people of the Province.

In the previous category, Employee Benefits, maybe it not as much political hay for the member opposite to make but I will make it because I think it is important. This is about providing employee benefits. Last year we had budgeted $2,500. What was spent? Five hundred dollars. Was it reduced to $500 for this coming year? No, because we believe that the amount allocated is reasonable. If it is all spent, it is spent. If it is not, it goes back into the general revenue that we use to provide for the delivery of health, education, post-secondary and everything else. It is about an appropriate allocation of what we believe may be reflected and needed for further negotiations around Gull Island or whatever is required to do the office and business work of the Premier.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The point I made - and I think it is quite a logical point - is that, it is not what you budgeted it is what the Premier and his spouse needed to travel last year. I am a believer that for the Premier of this Province, there are certain instances where it is important to have the spouse there. I don't deny that. That is not the point I am debating at all. I understand that and I wouldn't want to see the Premier back here in the Province when he should be in Ottawa or Texas or wherever. I am not debating that point at all, Minister. In fact, I think it is necessary for the Premier to do a fair amount of travel in promotion and dealing with matters. That is not the issue I am disputing, and I haven't disputed that issue in the past. In Public Accounts we never raised it at all.

I am just asking the minister: Why, when you had spousal travel, did you spend $250,000, and now, without it, with no spousal travel, it is 50 per cent higher than you spent last year. It is up to $375,000 from $250,000? When both of them could travel, where necessary, with a spouse, for $250,000, now for one to travel, the Premier, without a spouse, it is $375,000. That is a logical question, to ask: Why is there a 50 per cent increase in the Premier's travel now, even without the spouse, that equates into much higher than 50 per cent if you factor in the spouse? That is a logical conclusion to draw by looking at these figures. It has nothing to do with the question, whether the spouse should or should not travel. That is not the issue. I have my own views on that. I have just said here, I think for the Premier of our Province, there are instances where it is important. He is the chief elected officer in our Province, he is the head of our Province. There are situations which demand that the Premier do that. I don't deny that and I am supportive.

I have said before. I asked questions in the media back several years ago when Premier Tobin liked to travel a lot and he was down in Texas and elsewhere. I was Leader of the Opposition at that time and he asked me what did I think about travel. I said: Look, I cannot draw a conclusion on the Premier, whether it was a necessary trip. I would have to know what the trip was for, the nature of it and so on. It is all based upon the merits of that. I cannot say, carte blanche, he shouldn't be there. Maybe it is the best thing for our Province that the Premier was there. In the many instances where they are not there, you might have us stand up, or I might say: Well, look, I think it was important we were represented there.

That is not the issue at all. I am not passing judgement on the merits of that issue. I am just saying: Why is it 50 per cent higher, that is all, when both of them could travel on one amount and only one now under the new policy and it is 50 per cent higher? That is a simple, fair question to which I did not get an answer that made sense to me. It is because we budgeted more last year: it is not what you budget necessarily, it is what you require. So, are you budgeting $125,000 or $150,000 more than you require? That is the question I am asking. If you are, we are not budgeting prudently. When you have it there, there might be a tendency to spend it. If it is not in the budget you might have a tendency to have more restraints on what you spend and more fiscally prudent management of the resources of our Province, because we just seen a significant increase in revenue in our Province. We have seen a tremendous year of growth of 8.2 per cent in GDP but we have seen the deficit get bigger. We have a bigger cash deficit and a bigger deficit even with increase in revenues. That raises concerns. Just because revenues go up, do we go out and spend more, do we travel more, do we do these things? Why is it there? That was a logical question to ask. I do not know if the minister wants to comment on it further. If not, I will move on to another. If she does, I will certainly sit down and let her comment on that.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am only too happy to respond to the speech the member just made. I will make a couple of points. He talks about the deficit and the relation to the deficit. I would like to talk about the plan to the deficit, the very plan that this morning Moody's agreed was achievable and allowed us to achieve what we set out to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Who are Moody's? They are the rating agency for this Province. They know our plan is substantial, they know it is achievable, and I think that is important.

I say to the member opposite, last year there was an allocation made for Premier's travel. It was not all used. Why? Because it was not necessary. Now, I will ask the member opposite - and this is not in this budget but it is just as important a question: You took your spouse recently on a trip to Australia. Is your budget reduced for member travel through the Parliamentary -

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, I find that rather offensive by the Minister and I rise on a point of order. Not only did I not take my wife on a trip, but on the eight previous trips I went on my wife was not accompanying me. That is utterly false. It is unfair for that minister to stand here and make that statement. It is completely false. My trip was voted by a majority of Liberals on the Public Accounts and the Vice-Chair to go to Australia where we chaired, last year, the Canadian Conference. The Canadian Conference of Auditor Generals was chaired here by our Province at which I spent a considerable amount of time in chairing that. The vice-chair was selected to chair and did not chair and I ended up chairing that. I went as a representative, not my spouse, not one penny spent by my spouse. For the minister to raise that here: I ask her to stand and withdraw that statement that is completely false and giving an impression to the people of this Province. That is unfair. That is personal and she knows the difference because I have said it publicly on many occasions before. The Premier's spouse went, not mine.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, if I may.

I would say to the member opposite, I would certainly withdraw the statement about you taking your spouse to Australia, but I make the point. I heard you talking about the cost of taking your spouse to Australia on a seat sale ticket. I did not realize you did not take your spouse.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not talk about that.

A point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I heard the commentary.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a point of order..

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Can I finish my comments first?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a point of order. Madam Chairperson, a point of order.

I have never talked about the cost of taking my spouse on a seat sale ticket anywhere in the public forum because I never did it, it never happened, I never talked on it. The vice-chair of the Committee has the transcripts of those particular Open Line comment and the minister should check it, because that is wrong. I have never talked about it.

I went on the seat sale. I waited for days and days to get a cheaper rate, when I know for a fact that a spouse of a minister spent five times as much money to go to the same area. I went, as a member, by the taxpayers of this Province, representing and Chair of a certain committee of this House, and a very important committee of this House. That is wrong what the minister stated, and I want her to withdraw a false statement. She should stand and withdraw that because it is improper.

Madam Chairperson, people who make statements in this House that are completely false should have to stand up and withdraw those statements.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, if I had to stand up and ask for all the comments you made that were false we would be here all day. I will say, with respect to the comment on your spouse, I withdraw that.

I will ask the question: Members opposite here, and members in the House of Assembly, who have taken their spouses on trips, are you now receiving less because you are not taking spouses on your trips? I raise that to make a point. The point is, no. The allocation for members has not been reduced because they are no longer taking their spouses. I make that point to say that the allocation for the Premier's Office is made based on the premise that the business of the people of the Province has to be done. I also say, and point out, because the member opposite has not really pointed to this part, that even though there was a significant allocation last year, not all of it was spent because it was not deemed necessary. Quite frankly, I think that when you are talking about the Premier of the Province you have an opportunity and a right to give him that kind of ability to do the work on behalf of the people of the Province. Just like employee benefits, if the money for the employee benefits is not spent, what happens to it? It goes back into the general revenue and an allocation is made. In this particular case it was not all spent; nor was it reduced.

I say to the member opposite, and to the people listening, that you make an allocation, you do a budgetary item, and whether it is used and it has to be defended - everybody know where the Premier went. Everybody knows because there is a freedom of information. Everybody knows where ministers have gone. It is there for all of the people of the Province to see, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

When a minister stands and is asked questions that hit a nerve, she starts to get personal. I want to state, in the eleven years that I have been in this House, the money that was allotted to me for my benefit, to people in the district and so on, in eleven years I have never submitted one penny. The minister implied that spouses of members under their budgets have travelled on their budget. In eleven years, I never charged one penny, one cent, to the government of this Province for my spouse travelling out of my budget, I say to the Chairperson of the House.

To have someone stand here - and I am not so sure everybody can answer that because I know different. I am going to leave it at that. I do not want to get into it, but the minister stated here today on the record that members charge. She raised that issue and stated it. I am saying, I have never done it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am making a point of order because the member has assumed, when I said spouses, that I was referring to him. What I am saying is that Members of the House of Assembly who have taken their spouses on travel and have an allocation and now are no longer taking their spouses on travel, have not had any reduction in their allocation.

Now, if the member takes that as a personal affront, well that is his issue. The statement is, and it is accurate, there has been no reduction in Members of the House of Assembly allocation even though, at least on this side, there is no spousal travel.

That is the point I was making with respect to it. If he takes it personally, I would say that is his issue, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The minister made a statement that there is allocation and you were allowed to take spouses on travel within your individual budget. I was not even aware of that until a week or two ago when I heard someone.... I was not even aware of it. In fact, I use my budget every year in the district and the issue - I am not going to speak for other members, but I will speak for this member. In eleven years, I have never taken a cent for that purpose, and I will say that to the minister, out of my budget.

Madam Chair, I would like to ask the minister: Under .04 Supplies, $28,000 was spent last year on supplies and it is now $30,200. What are some of the major items and major areas that would be included? What are some of the bigger item categories? I do not need a breakdown of every single one in last year's that was spent, but what were some of the major expenditures, the two or three bigger ones under this particular heading, for instance, for the fiscal year just ended, or if there is a specific one in the year coming up?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This category of Supplies for the Premier's Office is the same as the category of Supplies for all departments of government. It includes routine necessary equipment for the operation of an office: paper, pens, all the normal things that you would provide. Now, if the member wants an itemized list of what was used, I can provide it. I am sure I can. I will go up and get the staff up there, who are busy, but I am sure they would be happy to do this. It is resource materials. It is office supplies. It is paper, it is pens, it is paper clips, it is whiteout, it is highlighters. It is those sorts of things.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I said to the minister when I asked this, I do not expect an itemized list of all things. I asked if there were two or three or four. Like, it might be a big item like a $5,000 item or a $6,000 or $3,000 or whatever. If you had three or four bigger items that might have been needed last year or in this year, if she could mention them. I said, I do not need a detail. I know under Supplies in every department there are budgets. I know they go for general areas. There are certain items in there that might be significant or there are not. If she says there are not, I will accept that and move on to my next question. That is all I asked in the beginning. I did not ask for how much has gone on paper clips and pens and paper. If there was an item that might extraordinary, that was $2,500 or $3,000, I think it is significant within the area and I think I have the right to ask how it is being spent.

I will go on to the next one, then, if the minister does not want to comment on that one. Under .06 Purchased Services -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, it is not a matter of not wanting. I answered the question. The member opposite asked me what did we spend the money in the Premier's Office for under the category of Supplies. He said, were there any particular issues, and I listed what was spent: paper, paper clips, highlighters, whiteout, loose-leaf, printer paper, all the things that a normal office would require.

In answering the question, I gave exactly the information that I have. I offered, if the member wanted a breakdown of how much he spends on paper or paper clips or pens or pencils, that we could ask the staff to do that. In answering the question, I did provide all of the information that we have, that the Premier's Office has a component of government and an office drawn similar to other departments of government and they use the same types of supplies as every other office. There are no big ticket items and, if there were, I would have answered it in my question, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

She said there were no big ticket items, that is the question I asked. I will accept that answer. I do not need a little itemize of all office things. I do not think we need to tie up people in the office running through and gathering up all these little items. I am sure there are lots of other things more productively they could do with their time. If there were big items I would assume they would have been sort of highlighted, if there were significant ones that the minister would have, if there were. She said there are not, so I will move on to Purchased Services.

Under Purchased Services; it is a very broad category and a lot of areas under Purchased Services and things. From familiarity in just dealing with, recently in Public Accounts, some of these issues that have come up, there is a very broad latitude in a lot of areas where there is a lot of tendering on these services in many instances.

Could the minister tell us the $26,500 last year, for example? I guess she cannot forecast specifically what they might need this year in all cases, but in line with historic amounts, $26,500. How much of that might be legal? How much might be in other area? Could you just give us some categories and amount that might have gone in each specific area?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

The member opposite would notice, last year the Budget was $26,500. The Revised amount was $26,500, and the budgeted amount for the coming year is $26,500. That is because of charges associated with photocopier and also printing costs.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment; it is $2,000, last year budgeted $5,000, spent $7,000 and this year budgeting $5,000. That would be, I guess, standard things. The minister could correct me if she has the details of that. Just normal property, furnishings or any particular equipment that you might need, whether it is a desk, whether it is a painting, whatever the case may be, I would assume would fall into this category.

While I am there, I will ask one on 09., Allowances and Assistance. I am assuming that is the $20,000 allotment, that is a taxable allotment, I think, the Premier gets as part of his income by residing in his residence. I think that was instituted back probably ten years or so ago. Am I correct in assuming on those in 07. and 09.? If they are, we will leave it at that and I will finish this section.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Allowances and Assistance piece; as you know, there was a time - I am not sure who the last Premier was, I think it might have been Premier Peckford who had a residence that was provided for him by the people of the Province up in Pippy Park. I think it was in the late 1980s or early 1990s, probably the early 1990s, the Premier of the day revoked that decision to provide a residence. In lieu of providing a residence and all of the amenities that go with it, an allocation of $20,000 - people remember that, but I am just saying the reason is that this is because there used to be a benefit provided for the Premier of the Province in the 1980s whereby a residence was paid for by the people of the Province and moved away from that direction and now there is an allocated amount to provide those kinds of services and benefits in lieu of providing a residence.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the minister taking time to answer questions this morning as part of the Budget Debate.

Minister, under the heading 2.2.01 which is dealing with the Cabinet Secretariat, Executive Support. The total amount budgeted for last year was $843,000 and actually spent was $746,000. You have budgeted an amount this year for Salaries of $885,800.

In the Salary Details provided by yourself and your department to the public and members opposite, Salary Details talk about a different figure. Salary Details: Clerk of Executive Council, $138,739; Deputy Clerk of Executive Council, $111,008; Assistant Deputy Minister, there are three positions under Cabinet Secretariat, at $244,948; Assistant Deputy Clerk, $74,474, one position; Secretary to the Clerk, $45,815, one position; Administrative Officer, $40,511, one position; Departmental Program Coordinator, $41,023, one position; and Secretary to Assistant Deputy Minister, $85,701, those are three positions; for a total for $782,219.

In the Budget Estimates, the departmental salary details are provided, and in the Budget it says there is budgeted $885,000. So there is about $103,000, approximately - sorry, $93,000 difference. Are the positions yet to be filled? Are they contractual positions to be filled or are they filled? I am just looking for an explanation on the discrepancy between the Departmental Salary Details and what was actually budgeted, if you could provide some more information related to that.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say to the member that the reason that the budget last year was lower than it was budgeted was because the Deputy Clerk was on assignment to the Royal Commission, the Romanow Report, as you would probably remember. That was the reason why it was lower last year. He is back on staff. In addition to him being back on staff, we are obliged to pay the 5.06 per cent increase in salaries. That includes for him being back and the added increase in salaries due to the 15 per cent over the last three years.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of this year, in the Budget Estimates it says that you have budgeted for 01. Salaries in Executive Support under the Cabinet Secretariat $885,800. In the Salary Details it is $782,219. Does the same explanation apply? You have budged for the upcoming year $782,219 in terms of that is what you have listed under Salary Details, yet in the Budget it says $885,800. Are there positions yet to be filled? If so, what are they? I am just looking as per par for the process that we are going through this morning, an explanation of why the difference.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is based on a cost of twelve permanent positions. Also, it is based on temporary and other employees at a cost of $65,000, overtime at a cost of $69,000, plus the increases on salary and other adjustments of $21,681, to come up to the total of $885,800.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: So there are actually people in the Cabinet Secretariat on temporary or contractual? Is that the correct term, Minister? That is what it would be. They would not be provided for in the Details here is what you are saying. I understand your explanation. I guess, then, the question that leads from that is: If there are temporary people or contractual people, is it possible to get a list of those, of what those positions are, and what they actually would be doing, similar to what you provide in the Salary Details?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? The minister says, yes.

Do you know what those positions are today, Minister? You would have to take the opportunity to look for those, would you?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I'm not bad, but (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough. I just asked the question because it raises an interesting point, actually. I will ask the minister this question: In providing Members of the House of Assembly, and through the House the members of the public, in Departmental Salary Details, one can safely assume, I guess, based upon your answer, that anybody in any department who is contractual or on temporary would not be included in this? Would that be a correct assumption to make, based upon your explanation to my previous question?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think I answered the question previously from your colleague who asked the same question. What I have said is that in every department of government, when we provide the Salary Details, we provide the Salary Details based on the permanent employees and then we have a category breakdown for temporary, contractual and overtime, as I just read out to you. That is true for every department of government. It is no different for anywhere. As you know, that has been the way it has been for as long as I have been around and it is the same this year.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was here for the questions that the Member for Ferryland has asked. I believe he did not ask anything about contractual employees. It is an important issue from this perspective. I do not know the exact number, and maybe the minister could elaborate, but within every department of government there are people in the employ of government under the heading contractual employee. I would think a couple of thousand or more have been contractual for four years, two years, five years, seven years and eight years. I know of one for eleven years. My colleagues, others, know of people for fourteen years.

Minister, let me ask you this: Under the Executive Council, then, would you have at your fingertips how many people would fall under the contractual definition, government's definition of a contractual employee in Executive Council, that we do not see in the Salary Details? Do you have an answer or an explanation for that, please?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Perhaps I should have taken the opportunity to go to the microphone when you asked the question previously. What I said to the Member for Kilbride was that all we have recorded here, in terms of names of people - they are not even names, they are positions - are those that are in the back of the Estimates. I did say to him that I would provide the information as soon as I was able to get my staff to work on that. I will provide it as soon - I cannot give you the numbers here because I am working from the fact, like all departments are, that we are working on our permanent employees. I can give you the breakdown of the cost of those, but I cannot give you the numbers and I cannot give you the actual time frames associated with it because we do not have that for all of government at the moment. As soon as I get it, I will be happy to share it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, generally speaking then, in your capacity as President of Treasury Board, you are able to predict the number of retirements, as you have done in the past, that are going to take place - you have done it last week, if my memory serves me correctly - in terms of the number of people within the public service, a general estimate or an approximate estimate, of how many will retire.

As President of Treasury Board, I would assume that you would be in possession of this figure. How many people who are now currently working for government meet your definition of contractual employee? In other words, how many contractual employees work for government that are not considered full-time or permanent employees?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think members opposite remember when we had this discussion with the Public Service Commission on the issue of temporaries and the number. We have the number of permanent people. In terms of the number of contractual, you are asking me to crystal ball that number. I cannot tell you. For example, this year we have people working on the Royal Commission that we did not have a year-and-a-half ago because we did not have a Royal Commission. We have people working on certain projects that we never had. For example, we have people working for the various departments, contractual and permanent, in various initiatives that government has started over the last number of years.

We have recorded the number of permanents. We do have the temporaries. In terms of, do I have it here for every department in government today? No, I do not have that. I would have to ask all of the various departments to go back and do that kind of analysis. Some people might be working for four weeks or six weeks. Are you talking about all of the student programs that are contractually hired and temporarily hired? We do not have all of that done, even though this year our program for students has increased significantly. That is part of the department's salary plans. As you know, that is an allocation that we have identified in the Budget.

What I have said to the member opposite is that, for this particular question, I would be happy to provide the information as soon as I get staff - I am assuming that they are listening to this and that they will work on the breakdown for me. With respect to all of the other departments, that information is not there. I know you are not interested in a make-work project for our staff, but I would certainly acknowledge the importance of the component of temporary. We have provided the temporary allocation funding, we have provided the overtime component, and we would be happy to provide it as soon as the staff completes it for this particular section.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I find it a little astounding, actually, and I do not know what to believe. I did not ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to crystalize or look into a crystal ball about, you know, what is occurring. I would think somewhere in the vicinity of 25,300, 25,600 people who work for the public service who are under the pension plan - it is my understanding the pension plans offered by government - surely the minister would know a general estimate of how many people in the public service are of a contractual nature. I know that these are concerns or questions that have been raised by the unions representing people within the employ of government in terms of, you know, people who are on contractual positions and have been on contractual positions for eleven years. One would think that would be a permanent position.

Is the minister saying that she does not know how many people are actually working for government of a contractual nature? I know that is subject to change here and there, but the fact of the matter is, as President of Treasury Board, officials would have had to have prepared for her, prior to budget submissions in terms of the expenditures of government, a number, a good solid general estimate of how many people fit into that category contractually. Is the minister saying she does not know how many contractual people work for government? Is that what the minister is saying?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What I said, Madam Chair, is that today I am here talking about the Budget as it relates to Treasury Board, Cabinet Secretariat and Executive Council. I also have said that I would provide the details around that information.

I know that in conjunction with the Public Service Commission, who are doing work around temporary employees and the number of temporary employees, I will say today if I gave you a number and it was two higher or two lower, they would say that you do not know the numbers within government. What I have said, in all fairness, is that I will ascertain the numbers. I will get the various departments to do an update on the numbers and all those kinds of things, but it is a lot of work. I know that they do fluctuate over time because there is a huge population of students who come and go, our work students and all of those. I know they are all compiled somewhere or there is a record of them because I know they all get paid for the work they are doing.

So, I would say today that, in all fairness - I know this is not Question Period. It is about Executive Council and I do know that these are important issues. In fact, the whole issue about retirement is a very important issue because we will be seeing 4,200 people out of the public service over the next four to six years so that we do have a human resource plan in place that we are starting this year. We have done a significant budget allocation for that. I will provide the information for the Cabinet Secretariat and I will ask the various departments to put together that kind of analysis. I know they are all being paid, as I said, and I will ask them for that. I am sure they are probably listening and beginning to work on it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have just gone through an extensive budgeting process that government goes through. It takes up an inordinate amount of time, beginning in earnest in late November, December. It concludes with the minister presenting a budget. My understanding is that the minister is saying she will ask the departments to provide that. My understanding is that they already provided to Treasury Board and that Treasury Board right now would be able to tell you, generally speaking, without fear of contradiction, a fairly good estimate of the number of people who are working for government of a contractual nature. All I have asked for, from the minister, is what is that number? No one is going to hold the minister to it if it is out by ten or out by fifteen. What we are looking for is a general estimate.

Within the public service, Madam Chair, in any given year people leave for a variety of reasons. They may retire, they may seek alternative employment elsewhere, there may be disputes between the employer and the employee that is not resolved and they decide to move on, whatever. There is always a movement within a public service as large and providing the services that we are. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that when asked a question about contractual employees, information that as minister, if she does not have, she should have asked for a long time ago, that we cannot answer that question.

Madam Chair, I wonder if we could - it being to the hour where we are about to go because we have made special arrangements so members on both sides of the House will be able to attend the funeral of our colleague from Lewisporte, the funeral for his wife, the late Jacinta Rideout. I wonder if it might be appropriate now if I just adjourn the debate and we can bring it, in terms of the Estimates on Executive Council, return on Monday.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I declare the House adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.