May 13, 1999                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIV  No. 23


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure later today to introduce, for first reading, a bill to create a new Municipalities Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The new act will give municipalities greater freedom, flexibility and autonomy to effectively manage their own affairs and to eventually become masters of their own destinies.

The Municipalities Act is the enabling legislation for the Province's 287 towns, its single regional council, and 175 Local Service Districts. This new legislation reflects the broad based view of all of the stakeholders, including our municipalities, the Federation of Municipalities, and the Association of Municipal Administrators.

The introduction of this legislation is an important milestone for my department. Over the past several years the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have focused on ensuring that municipalities have the necessary tools in the way of legislation, financial, administrative and communication supports to respond to challenges and effectively serve their residents. The new Municipalities Act is the most significant component of this "tool kit" approach of providing support and fostering self-reliance and independence among local governments. It will be accompanied by a substantial training initiative as well as an education and awareness campaign.

Development of the new act has been subjected to an extensive review and consultation process for the past several years. It has taken into account a number of emerging issues such as the need for greater autonomy for municipalities, the changing role of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the economic realities of administering local governments in addition to dealing with inadequacies in the existing legislation. This review and development process has enjoyed the involvement and cooperation of the municipalities, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators.

In the meantime, a number of substantial amendments have been made to the existing legislation in order to provide municipalities with the benefits identified during the ongoing review process. These include several financial and tax-related amendments that were approved in December of 1998 to allow municipalities to incorporate the benefits in their 1999 budgets.

There will be ample time during debate to speak about the more significant provisions of the act; however, I would like to briefly highlight some of them today for hon. members.

The new legislation removes many of the restrictive provisions that are contained in the current act. It increases municipal autonomy in administration and financial management; it expands taxation and collection capabilities; it provides authority for economic development; and, it expands as well as provides new authority for service delivery and municipal controls. In addition, the new act is organized in a way that it is much easier to use.

This act will greatly support municipalities as they strive to meet the current and future challenges of local government.

This government recognizes that the future growth, development and prosperity of the Province as a whole will depend, to a large extent, upon strong and vibrant municipalities. I believe that this new act will help to ensure that our municipalities are structured in such a way as to enable them to more effectively deliver the types of services that people will require - and are able to afford - in the years to come.

I would like to recognize that individuals in the gallery today who are representatives of the various stakeholders who have participated in this consultative process: Mayor Dianne Whelan of Paradise, who is the Avalon Regional Director of the Federation of Municipalities and representing the Federation's President, Sam Synard who could not make it today; Mayor Heber Walters of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips, and Chair of the Federation's Review Committee for the new act; Dr. Patricia Hempstead, Executive Director of the Federation of Municipalities; and Mr. Gerard Lewis, former President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to first thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House sat today. I appreciate that. As a former mayor of a small town, I would say that I do not often stand in my place and congratulate a minister on the other side on something they have done; but this new Municipalities Act has been a long time coming. We have been a long time waiting for it. Eight years in the making, I do believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not finished yet - eight years in the making.

I want to also congratulate the Department of Municipal Affairs on the approach they took with respect to the changes to the Municipalities Act in dealing with the Federation of Municipalities and the local town councils.

There are a couple of points I want to make on this. I have not seen the act yet, so I really cannot speak on the contents of it, other than the outline that was given. If what the minister is saying is true, that the act is more simplified, user-friendly, that is very important. Because often times we get people elected to councils across the Province who have various degrees of education, experience, age and what have you. It is good to see that point addressed. Conflict of interest rules or regulations are going to be changed. I think that is very important, not only with respect to the disclosure of personal assets or whatever the case may be, but with respect to what is to be considered a conflict of interest.

It is very important. I have had discussions with representatives of the Department of Municipal Affairs in the past when people from municipalities in my district came to me talking about conflict of interest. As a matter of fact, I had the Auditor General go into one of the municipalities in my district a few years ago, so that is another very important thing.

Another thing is the autonomy. I have been requesting for years that towns be given more autonomy and responsibilities and accountability, because the people who are elected to these municipalities are the front line workers, if you want to refer to it that way. These are the people who understand their towns, know what the towns need, and know what the constituents in their own local towns need. I think that is something that is very important and needs to be addressed.

I really do hope that the municipalities and the people who had the input were listened to. I will not know that until I actually see the act itself. As the minister said, we will have ample time, I hope, in this House of Assembly to address the concerns. If it is going to be discussed, if it is not referred to a legislative -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I've not sat down yet, I say to the minister. I can handle you yet. I can make a comment on - Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to be as positive as I can on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Premier is trying to provoke me, I know that, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, I want to say the definition (inaudible). I'm sorry, Premier. Also, before I sit down - I will have lots of time to speak on it -, but with respect to the time in the House of Assembly, I know that we are going into night sittings tonight. The Government House Leader and the Premier want us out of the House of Assembly as soon as possible. I know that.

Before I sit down, I want to congratulate the people in the gallery who has input into this act. I hope that I will have no questions, I suppose, with respect to the content of the new Municipalities Act in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to advise members of the House of Assembly of government's intention over the coming months to undertake a comprehensive view of this Province's tax policy. As part of that review, we will undertake an examination of Newfoundland and Labrador's competitive tax position in relation to other jurisdictions.

Once completed, this review will serve as the basis for the Province to move forward with appropriate changes to its overall tax regime. Our approach is to develop a new tax policy over the next twelve months which will facilitate a multi-year reduction in personal income tax.

At 69 per cent of the basic federal tax, plus a surtax of 10 per cent of provincial tax above $7,900, this Province currently has the highest provincial income tax rate in the country. New Brunswick, which is next with a rate of 60 per cent, pledged in its 1999 budget to reduce taxes to 57.5 per cent. In Ontario, the government will further reduce the provincial tax rate from 40.5 per cent to 38.5 per cent, and has pledged to further reduce it by 20 per cent, which will be effectively a reduction of another 8 per cent in the tax rate over the coming years. The tax gap is widening and we cannot allow this competitive disadvantage to grow.

As hon. members are aware, an integral part of this government's mandate is to reduce taxes, including personal income taxes, when it is fiscally prudent to do so. However, in doing so we must be careful not to affect government's ability to provide services and programs.

During our pre-Budget consultations, many individuals and groups maintained that tax reductions would stimulate our economic growth with a consequent increase in employment. At the same time, most of those who spoke did not want these tax reductions to come at the cost of decreased programs or services. There is an acute public awareness of the delicate balance to be maintained between revenues and expenditures. There is no strong public appetite for deficit spending.

Over the past number of years, we have taken step to create a more favourable tax regime. The introduction of the HST in 1997 represented the largest single tax reduction in the Province's history: from 19.8 per cent to 15 per cent. In the 1999 Budget, we introduced the Seniors' Benefit, which will provide a credit of up to $200 to qualifying seniors.

Government has also undertaken to provide a more favourable business tax environment. Our corporate tax rate is among the most favourable in the country. For the second consecutive year, we were able to raise the threshold for the payroll tax which has exempted more than 500 employers from the tax roll and provided a tax reduction for most other employers. This is in addition to the substantial competitive advantage which the introduction of the HST has provided to businesses located in the Province.

These initiatives are a good beginning, and we look forward to being in the position to do more, but we must do so in a responsible manner. Government is faced with the challenge of balancing the need to ensure adequate revenue to provide vital public services, with the need to reduce taxes for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Government must endeavour to share our limited resources among all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in an equitable manner. We feel that the best mechanism to achieve this is through tax reductions.

We all deserve better tax policy. The people of our Province deserve to have that policy implemented in a manner which is fiscally prudent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy. It is interesting, I say, that this government would now raise the issue of the Province's taxation. In particular since we have the highest income in gasoline taxes in the country, and the only province, I say, with a payroll tax. It is further interesting that the Premier and this government should now raise this issue so soon after an election when he scoffed at our proposal to reduce the taxes, and before the ink is dry in this year's Budget.

I say the time for tax reform and tax reduction was in this year's Budget. That is when it should have happened, in this year's Budget, but now the Premier has finally realized that tax reductions are necessary. He should now be more specific and not posture with vague statements by some reduction in the next twelve months.

I say to the minister and to the Premier: Be specific, tell us how much of a reduction there will be. In particular, tell us which taxes. With respect to the payroll tax, I applaud the minister for finally realizing that our policy statement was a sound statement. Because it stated quite clearly, and I would quote from our policy document, that: "A PC government will eliminate the payroll tax - a regressive tax on jobs that unfairly impacts local businesses."

So I commend the minister for making at least some sense with respect to the proposed reform that he is suggesting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: More good news, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to inform my hon. colleagues that the outlook for the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing and aquaculture industries for 1999 is a very positive one. All indicators this year point towards continued growth and strengthening of our fishery. This growth is the result of many things, including professionalization of the industry and our Quality Assurance Program.

Last year, the fishing industry pumped $700 million into our provincial economy and I am proud to report that we are optimistic and we will be experiencing an additional $100 million in export value this year. This means an export value of $800 million for Newfoundland and Labrador fish products in 1999.

MR. TULK: How much?

MR. EFFORD: Eight hundred million in 1999.

This is great news for our Province, as the fishery continues to be a major contributor to the economy.

Our continued improved industry performance, which saw approximately 27,000 people employed directly in the fishery last year, is largely due to our inshore shrimp fishery and crab fishery. The strong performance of these fisheries has brought back increased confidence into the industry. In 1998, the private sector invested $110 million in harvesting and processing, and there will be eleven shrimp processing plants on stream in 1999. I believe that if our shrimp and crab resources are managed properly and we continue on with our trend to developing a multi-species fishery, the opportunities to make a reasonable living for those who remain in the fishery will continue to improve.

The 1999 quota for inshore shrimp was increased to 41,029 tonnes from 29,840 in 1998. The 1999 crab quota is increased to 61,185 tonnes, up from 49,000 last year. The ground fishery is experiencing slow recovery overall but there are signs of recovery in some areas including the stocks in 3Ps. The 3Ps cod stock has recovered to where a substantial commercial fishery is now possible. The TAC for 1998 was 20,000 tonnes and we are anticipating, with a recommendation from the FRCC, that the quota will be this year 30,000 tonnes.

With the increases in crab and shrimp quotas, and an anticipation of an increase in the 3Ps cod stock, we expect approximately 285,000 tonnes of fish to be landed in 1999, with an estimated landed value of about $450 million. We have worked hard to achieve a regional balance in terms of the number of fish plants around the Province. I should say that when I became minister in 1996 there were approximately 240 licensed primary processing plants. The number of licensed plants has now been reduced to 169, with 127 showing production in 1998. I am confident that we will achieve further consolidation in the processing sector through our core/non-core processing licensing policy.

Peak monthly employment in the processing sector totalled 13,400 jobs in 1998 with a average monthly employment of 6,200. Our objective is to increase, over time, the duration of employment for these employees. In 1997, plant workers obtained 6.6 million person hours of work, and this increased to 8 million hours in 1998.

Our aquaculture industry is growing, Mr. Speaker, and it has the potential for new opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Like all new industries, there are challenges, but we are confident about this industry's future. In 1998, the Province's aquaculture sector produced 2,700 tonnes of product with an estimated market value of $12.9 million. We are anticipating a 57 per cent increase in production in 1999, and a market value of approximately $16 million.

Of the 2,700 tonnes of product last year, 1,000 tonnes of mussels were produced for a market value of $1.9 million; and we are proud to report that the mussel production is expected to double in 1999. Salmonid production had a market value of $10.5 million last year and we are projecting that amount to increase to $13 million this year.

It is important to point out that all aspects of our fishery be managed in a quality manner. We have made major inroads in terms of our quality enhancement initiatives and we are confident that only premium products will continue to be landed and produced in 1999. The disciplined approach we have been taking in producing and selling our products has benefited the industry greatly and resulted in positive market response. Our quality assurance measures ensure that we get the maximum value of our fish resources.

The success of our fish price settlement pilot project had a very positive impact on our fishery last year, with early fishery openings and orderliness throughout the season. The pilot project also proved very successful in 1999. All parties involved in this process are to be commended. Fish prices have been settled for a number of species and negotiations are ongoing for others. This translates into our fisheries opening on a timely basis again this year, thus providing maximum harvesting and processing employment opportunities for people throughout the Province. As a result of our price settlement mechanism, we are supplying the markets with premium products on a timely basis, which is vital to the future of the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, we are optimistic that 1999 will be another great year for the fishing industry in our Province - a professional fishing industry that is now being driven by private sector investment. The professionalization of our fishery will continue to contribute to the development of a multi-species fishery.

In 1999 and beyond, we will continue working towards obtaining full economic benefits from harvesting, processing and marketing of our marine resources. Our fishery has always been and will always be the backbone of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member, I would like to welcome to the gallery today a former Member of the House of Assembly for the District of St. Barbe, Mr. Trevor Bennett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here again, we see the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture getting up and patting himself on the back, talking about how wonderful things are today and how bad they were three years ago before he took over this department.

A lot of the positive things in the fishery today happened in spite of the minister; in spite of the minister, I say. There is no doubt about it that we are doing very well in harvesting shellfish in this Province. Some of the harvesters of shellfish are doing very well, but there has been a terrible price to pay at the other end when you look at the number of plant workers employed today as compared to the number of plant workers that made their living in the fishery.

When you hear the minister talk about the numbers of people employed today, I say to the minister, there is a far difference today in the length of time that those people have been employed than they were when we had a ground fishery.

Yes, we are doing okay, I say to the minister, in most cases. Yes, quality has moved a long way. We should be very proud and I compliment the minister for his involvement in that particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not compliment the minister in what he did with the crab processing sector, where he has put crab plants around this Province - in one particular area, three crab plants within fifteen minutes of each other on the Southern Shore, I say to the minister. All we have done is transfer jobs. We have transferred jobs from one area of this Province to the other.

It was only today that I spoke with a worker who works in Bonavista. Most crab plants today have a tremendous appetite in order to do product. In Bonavista today they are doing in excess of 250,000 pounds of crab in one day, I say to the minister. Down in Marystown, 200 people got laid off or will get their notices because of the new technology brought forward in the fish plant down in Marystown.

While the minister stands and talks about the wonderful things that are happening within the fishing sector, there is a price to pay on the other end as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have 61,000 tonnes of crab being harvested this year. Do I understand from the hon. member that he is calling for the closure of two plants up on the Southern Shore - two plants?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. What I am talking about is how the minister speaks from both sides of his mouth. When he started to talk about issuing crab licenses, it was all going to be done on a regional basis to improve quality. That is something that has not happened here.

I say to the minister, last year there were 29,840 tonnes of shrimp. Out of that 29,840 tonnes, there were only 44,000 pounds of shrimp left in the water, one tractor-trailer load. So that can show again that we are harvesting our product to almost 100 per cent which is good, which is the way it should be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister that when we look at employment levels it is a far cry today from what it was a few years ago. I only have to look at the plant in my own district in Port Union to see the numbers of people that are unable to find a job.

So while we are doing very well, I think we should strive to process every pound of fish, take it to the extreme to have it ready for the supermarket shelves before it leaves this Province. That is still not being done in Newfoundland and Labrador today. It is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of this issue I am seeking unanimous consent of all sides of the House - there are only two parties here today, so I am sure my party will give consent - to allow the hon. member more time to tell the House which two crab plants on the southern shore the hon. member wants to see closed because he believes those licences ought not to have been issued.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: This item is important. He has made the statement, and I think he should now tell the House, and through the House the people of the Province, which two crab plants should be closed on the southern shore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, pleas!

There is no point of order.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The PC caucus committee on education is continuing in its first round of public hearings and we have brought solid evidence that this government's decision to cut 182 teachers from the system next year on top of hundreds in the system that have already been lost will mean cuts to programs, increased class size and a diminishing of the quality of education that our children receive. In short, it means a lower quality of education at a time when students need and were promised a better education system.

My question is for the Premier. In view of his statements yesterday that the government must do more and will do more, let me ask him: Does he plan to wait until the year 2000 when the damage is done, or will he make the commitment now to leave sufficient teachers in place next year to ensure that programs are not cut, that class sizes are not increased, and that education does not suffer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the hon. gentleman in the same manner in which I responded to his colleague yesterday.

The Department of Education is meeting with the education directors of all of the boards throughout the Province. We are listening to what the boards are telling us, what the education directors are telling us. We are going to do a thorough analysis on what they are telling us. As the Premier said yesterday, we are listening, and I have the flexibility to address any legitimate concerns out there, and we will do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree in part with the minister when she says that the Premier led the people of the Province to believe yesterday in the media and in the House that he has flexibility to halt the erosion of teaching resources, particularly in the rural areas where the cuts are hitting the system hard.

If he has the flexibility then my question is: Why doesn't he use it? How much more time do you want, Mr. Premier, for our students to lose time in the classroom? How much more uncertainty are you going to put our students and parents through? If you have flexibility, why don't you act in the same way when you act on matters with respect to tax cuts, or just recently the taking down of signs in public places in this building? So, I ask the Premier if indeed there is flexibility, why not exercise that flexibility and act now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what is contributing to a great deal of the unease that is out there are the false and misleading statements, and I would suggest politically motivated statements, that are being made by members of the Opposition who are interested in creating an impression of deep cuts and loss of programs which are not going to occur.

The Minister of Education has said repeatedly in this House that the minister and her officials are reviewing the situation across the Province with each board on a board-by-board basis, that the minister and indeed the government are committed to a quality education for the people of our Province, and that where action needs to be taken to deal with legitimate problems which are identified, the minister has the flexibility to act.

If the member is genuine in saying that he wants to see students in the schools, in particular, at this time of year, when it is important for all of our children - and many of the members of this House have children in school, and all of us are committed to a quality school system. If he is serious about wanting to see children in school, I would ask he and his party to quit repeating, in some cases manufacturing, statements which bear no resemblance to reality when we are trying to go through a proper review process and, where appropriate, take the measures necessary to maintain the quality of our system.

I would join with him in encouraging students to be in the classroom, reviewing and getting ready for final exams.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would ask the Premier not to question the genuineness, or the sincerity or the intention of this exercise. I would say to the Premier that he should listen to the genuineness, the sincerity and the concerns of individuals who attended meetings in Stephenville, in Port aux Basques, and last night in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: How much more damage will the Premier do to our education system? How many more students will have to do without the courses they need, without the one-on-one teaching time they need, before this Premier recognizes that the burden for educating this generation of students rest on his shoulders? It is his job to ensure that they get an education that allows them to compete. How much more time, Mr. Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I did see a gentleman on television at a Port aux Basques school. The last time I met him he sheepishly introduced himself to me, when I was visiting the school, as the vice-president of the PC association, making a presentation to a PC caucus committee. I think the member opposite knows precisely what I am talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many people today in the Province - students, teachers, parents - who are participating in a variety of ways, expressing their concern about maintenance of the quality of our education system, and they are doing so genuinely.

Some people are expressing the concern based on reports which are false. There is a lot of false information out there. That is why the Minister of Education has said: Let the department and the minister complete the review that she is now undertaking with the boards of education across the Province, and when all of the information is in based on the facts, and we see how the teaching positions are being assigned across the Province, where there are legitimate problems to be addressed those problems will be addressed.

Let me say something else. I said yesterday, and I would be interested in the comment from the Member for St. John's East, that I believe that as we move to develop a new formula for the allocation of teaching resources in this Province that formula has to reflect the reality of rural Newfoundland.

I am sure all members of the House would want to know where the Member for St. John's East stands on that issue. Does he share my view that we have to give special consideration to the reality that in rural Newfoundland a teacher allocation reduction has a greater impact often than in urban Newfoundland? Is he prepared to stand in the interest of the whole of the Province and join with us in saying we ought to put a greater emphasis on the rural parts of this Province? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Easy point, Mr. Speaker. Every single student in this Province ought to be treated fairly and equitably, and where need arises need has to be addressed, whether it is rural or urban Newfoundland. I say to the Premier that he should immediately stop pitting rural against urban or urban against rural. This is a question of need, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Where need is shown, need must be addressed. In conclusion, my final question is: In view of what we have heard in the last several days - and, I might add, close to 300 people at a meeting in Corner Brook, constituents of the Minister of Finance and Justice, constituents of the Member for Humber East, constituents of the former district of the Premier, who showed up in numbers and voiced their concerns and troubles with respect to education -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the Premier once again, finally: Will you act now? Will you act immediately to address the concerns in our Province with respect to classrooms and education generally?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the minister completes the review that the minister is doing, and we are certain of the information that we have versus dealing with allegations and statements which are true, then the government will take the action deemed appropriate to ensure a quality education system in the Province.

I have to say to the member, we cannot duck in this House. The reality is - and this is not a question of pitying urban versus rural Newfoundland. I have represented urban and rural Newfoundland for all of my political career. I have been a member for both urban communities and rural communities.

We have to face up to a truth in this House which has for too long gone ignored. That is, there is not equality between urban and rural communities. There has not for a long time been equality between urban and rural communities. If we are going to target additional resources and look at the formula, we have to be ready to start giving more attention to rural Newfoundland where a lot of the programs that people are talking about saving are not available now, have never been available, and perhaps ought to be by tweaking the system to assist those who live in the rural communities of this Province. That is going to be the plan of the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, today my questions are for the Minister of Education.

Minister, I have returned, I guess, for show-and-tell time. I understand the Premier indicated that we are out manufacturing, but I tell you that I am not manufacturing the examples that I am going to show and I am going to tell right at this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I do not believe that this government is convinced that teacher cuts are negatively impacting on programming in schools for September of 1999.

St. Francis Xavier, Deer Lake, 1999 school year, half-time library and counsellor, cut; three classes of Grade VII instead of four; thirty two or thirty-three in a classroom; math enrichment cancelled; math remediation cancelled; phys ed cancelled. Is this manufacturing evidence, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, now I think we can all understand why parents and students are protesting and upset. This is the type of information they are being fed. This is exactly what they are being told by those out there who are supposed to be administering the system.

What I want to find out is, how much of this is for real? If these are concerns because of the way that the school boards are allocating the teacher units that are given to them, then I want to know that. This is why we are having the ongoing discussions with the education directors. I do not need the Opposition bringing back information to me from their road show.

We will find out information from the education directors who allocate the teachers to the schools, who can tell us exactly how they have done that. Then we will determine whether or not they have allocated them properly.

Interestingly enough, as The Western Star says here: Ironically, three of the members of the Opposition who are on the board are former high school principals.

Why are I not surprised with the information they are bringing back?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, example number two, Pasadena Academy, Pasadena: music, from a full unit to a half unit, reduced; library resource eliminated; class sizes increased; technology eliminated; phys ed reduced; guidance counsellor time reduced. That is real, Minister. Again this is real, not manufactured. This came to me last night. This came from a parent and it is addressed to you, Minister. What are you going to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the parent would not have known that if the information had not come from another source, and the source certainly was not the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about reinvesting in education. Well, if the hon. member opposite wants to rhyme off what may happen if these things take place, let me tell him a few examples of what this government has done to try and make sure that these things do not happen.

We have put in an additional $24.2 million to eliminate school board debt, so the school boards will be able to invest more in education and not have to absorb that debt themselves. Operational savings from the consolidation of 472 schools to 365 have been reinvested in the system. School boards maintain their operating grants at 1996-1997 levels. An additional $2.5 million was reinvested for computers in our schools. Funding for student assistants has increased from $6.4 million to $7.4 million. We put in fifty additional special education teachers that have been provided to school districts. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker.

While he would like to stand up and give me examples of what may or may not happen out in the districts, I will give examples any day about how we have reinvested in education to ensure a quality program for the students in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, example number three: Herdman Collegiate have been advised that they will be losing four teaching units as of September of 1999. A number of the students stood before me last night and said to say to the minister that because of these cuts, courses - especially AP courses - will have to be dropped.

This dropping of the AP courses will mean that their entry into post-secondary institutions will be possible but they will be forced to do courses in sciences and maths to prepare them to move further.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Are you willing to place added financial burden on these students, increase time spent in post-secondary, increase the debt load of students in the future? Are you willing to do this, Minister? Are you willing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me assure you, I did not ask the members opposite for any examples. They are the last ones I would look to for examples. I can get all the examples I need from meeting with - or, I would like to think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: I would like to think, Mr. Speaker, that I could get all the examples I need from speaking with the education directors; but let me refer to this particular school board, the education director of this particular school board, and the difficulty that we are having in getting the information that we need. In fact, it has raised a real question for us in terms of that particular school board, in terms of the quality of the information we are getting back based on the discussions that we have had so far.

Mr. Speaker, I will say again, I will be speaking with this gentleman personally because I am not happy with the information we are getting. When I look at pupil/teacher ratios here, if you are looking at Elwood Regional High in Deer Lake, where we have students out protesting, where the parents and teachers have condoned that students are out of the classrooms instead of in studying, that is regrettable, I would think, to have students out when they could be in their classes and actually preparing for their exams. Elwood Regional High in Deer Lake, the pupil/teacher ratio, seventeen students to every teacher.

If you want to look at Northshore Elementary in Meadows: 16.8 students to every teacher. Look at St. James Elementary in Channel-Port aux Basques, where we had the principal stand up and speak, we have 16.7 students to every teacher. At St. James Junior High, 14.6 students to every teacher. Why are they complaining, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a final example: Northshore Elementary School, Meadows, a parent last evening in Corner Brook pleaded that I pass along to the minister this plea about her son Matthew, a special needs' student, who because of cutbacks will have to have his individual program adjusted.

She asked you minister: Are you willing to place Matthew's program in jeopardy, putting him at risk of perhaps ending up not achieving his potential and perhaps ending up as a high school dropout?

That is what the parent is asking of you today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I empathize with every parent and every student out there who is being given this misinformation. I empathize with every one of them who are out protesting. I would probably do the same thing if I were a parent and being told the things that the members opposite are coming back and telling us.

We will get the information from the boards. I guarantee you we will get the information and we will do a sound evaluation of that information. I stand here and repeat again today that where there are legitimate concerns this government will address them, because we want a quality education program in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are, again, for the Minister of Transportation concerning the Gulf ferry service. We started on some questions a couple of days ago and we talked about the Atlantic Freighter specifically. Is the minister aware of an internal review done by Marine Atlantic themselves talking about the Atlantic Freighter? That was one of the recommendations, I understand, to the federal minister already. They have presented that to the federal minister, and they did indeed get back a negative response with respect to the Atlantic Freighter.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am aware of that, and in consultation and dialogue with the Chair of the Board of Marine Atlantic they have shared some things with me. That is general knowledge so that is not a difficulty to acknowledge. What they have really said to me, through the Chair, is that if we can in any way strengthen their hand in the proposition that they need a larger and a better replacement for the Atlantic Freighter, then that would be helpful.

As I shared earlier, I will be travelling to Ottawa later this afternoon to meet with the federal minister tomorrow. We will be making the case that substantially, I believe, the board has already made. We will see to what extent we can make some progress in impressing upon the federal government that we are not prepared as a province to accept anything less than full and fair transportation opportunities on the Gulf, consistent with the obligation that they undertook when we joined, as a province, the Federation of Canada in 1949.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I couldn't agree with you more, Minister. We have been saying that for many years, and so have many groups in this Province. I guess since Confederation we have used the same argument, what the minister referred to yesterday as us being treated as second-class citizens when it comes to the ferry service to this Province.

That is just one aspect and one of the issue that we have talked about in this Province in the last couple of years. I would like to ask the minister: What other specific issues will you be raising besides the Atlantic Freighter with the minister when you meet with him in the next couple of days?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I will be raising with the minister a number of issues we have raised on many occasions in the past, and issues that the board of Marine Atlantic have been raising. There are issues regarding capacity, issues regarding the level of service, issues with respect to their ability to respond when service is disrupted because of stormy weather and that sort of thing, issues with respect to management of the fleet generally that we want to deal with. These are the issues that we have been pressing the case on for many years, and certainly pretty hard for the last couple of years.

We have had some success, I would say. We have seen the relocation of employees from Moncton to Port aux Basques. We have seen a commitment to equalization of representation on the board of Marine Atlantic. Whereas it was once upon a time a New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Newfoundland, composition of a board, now it is Nova Scotia and Newfoundland alone. That is progress. It is not where we want to get it necessarily but we have made progress on a number of fronts. We acknowledge that on behalf of our representation in the federal government. We think there is more room for progress to be made. That is why we are going to press the case on all fronts that we think appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the minister, there has been little progress as far as I am concerned, and as far as a lot of groups are concerned. They really question the real commitment of this federal government to put an adequate service in this Province.

One of the things - and the minister touched on it a little - was a debate that was carried on in this Province some time ago about the CEO, and the fact about the personnel. There are two things I will ask the minister. First of all, is it true that the CEO is still only in an acting capacity? The federal government has not seen fit to put a permanent CEO in place. Is it still true, Minister, that over 60 per cent of the personnel for the ferry service to this Province is still in Nova Scotia? Is that true?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the first part of the question, yes, Mr. Darrell Weaver was appointed acting president and CEO last year. The federal government has not yet named him or anybody else as a permanent replacement. We would like to see that happen and I will take that up with the minister as well, but that is not the substantive issue. The substantive issue is with respect to capacity and level of service. We will move in pressing these issues, as I have said earlier, to the maximum degree that we think is appropriate. Hopefully we will achieve success sooner rather than later.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. Minister, could you tell the House the status of the environmental assessment for the Marystown Shipyard? How long before we see it, and what is the approximate cost to the people of the Province to carry out the remediation at the site in Marystown?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if the member is referring to the committee that I set up some time ago along with the union, government, the municipality and Department of Health, to investigate the workers' health out there at that particular facility. As far as the clean up is concerned, I have no idea of where that is at this particular time.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister still does not know how much it is going to cost the Province to sell the Shipyard for $1. It is a good thing you guys are not on commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if government were environmentally responsible they would have some idea of the cost of the environmental clean up of the Shipyard before it was transferred.

Minister, how much longer before we see environmental clean up work started at Marystown?

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. member's question, the environmental clean up and the study stages are at the second stage. The Marystown Shipyard portfolio is in under my department. The second stage of the environmental clean up information that we need has been received and is being reviewed by my department, and at the next stage now, the costing of it will be done in stage three.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, normally when a site that houses hydrocarbons and other toxic substances is to have a transfer of ownership an environmental assessment must be carried out before the transfer is complete. I ask government: Why the double-standard? Why can government get away with this when private interests have to follow the rules?

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

MS KELLY: I think there are other examples that you ought to be looking to and to understand, like St. John's Shipyard as it was transferred, but let me tell you that government is following the rules. The assessment is being done, the priorities are being set, and we will be addressing it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Last week or a few days ago we saw the FRCC report released. In that particular report there was no recommendation made at this time for any recommendations of what activity would take place as far as groundfish activity goes in area 2J-3KL. I ask the minister when we can expect to hear that announcement, and if he has made any recommendation to the FRCC or to his federal counterpart in Ottawa as to what the commercial quota might be in that particular area?

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

MR. EFFORD: First of all, to answer the first part of the question, we are expecting it next week, some time between now and the end of May, but more than likely next week.

Have I made recommendations on what the quota should be? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I have no scientific background, no knowledge of what the stocks are. We leave that up to science. One scientist recommends that about a 35,000 to 40,000 tonne quota would be a reasonable quota for that division. Another group of scientists say it should be much less than that, and that is the reason the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that he would not make the announcement for that area at the same time the FRCC submitted a report; it would take a couple of weeks to look at both reports. That will come down, but I suspect it will be much less than has been requested by the fishermen in that area.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another issue that was not addressed at the release of the FRCC report as well was, I suppose, something that is on everybody's mind in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the food fishery - whether we are going to have a food fishery this year or not. I ask the minister when he expects to have that announcement released, and if he again has made any recommendation to his cousins up in Ottawa whether there should be a food fishery or not.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of cousins out in Port de Grave but none in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, just imagine; the hon. Member for Bonavista South made a recommendation today to close two crab plants on the Southern Shore. Now he is asking me, before a commercial quota comes down for the fisherman along the Northeast Coast, to make an announcement on the food fishery. Let's make sure that we understand exactly what is out there. Let's not repeat any mistakes of the past. The first people who should have access to the fish are the commercial fishermen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

In Question Period today, when the Member for St. John's East was asking questions of the Premier, the Premier stood and answered the question and used the words: false and misleading statements and manufacturing statements.

In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, on page 145, false statement is listed under Unparliamentary Language. On page 148, misleading is also listed under Unparliamentary Language. I ask the Premier to withdraw his remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I made any such reference to members in this House. I made reference to false and misleading statements being made which would cause people to be alarmed.

In deference to the long-standing reputation of the member who has just spoken as one of the most succinct, well-spoken and careful members of this House, and given the example he set for all of us on so many occasions for quiet demeanour, non-heckling and proper language, I accede to any request he makes. If anybody in this House on any side thinks that those comments may have referred to them, I would happily withdraw them to exemplify the example of the member himself whenever he is on his feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

I rise today to report on behalf of the Government Services Committee to the House to advise the House that we have considered and approved without amendments the estimates of expenditure of the following departments: Finance; Works, Services and Transportation; Government Services and Lands; Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Public Service Commission.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following petition: We, the undersigned, teachers, parents and students of Herdman Collegiate, petition the hon. House of Assembly to listen to the concerns we have for school programming next year in view of the fact that Herdman Collegiate's teaching allocation will be reduced by four teaching units.

We believe our school staff has been scaled down unfairly and unjustly. Our teacher losses will mean: course selections offered at Herdman will be more constrained and limited; advance placement courses may not be offered; the position of educational therapist will almost certainly disappear; class size will dramatically increase.

We believe these cuts do not conform to the expectations of constituents who supported school reform. We urge government to adopt a teacher allocation formula that guarantees quality education, and that the priority is on school programming.

I will speak to the petition. This petition was presented to me last night by a student who stood in a public meeting and went down through the concerns that he had regarding the loss of four teacher units from the allocation for next September.

Again, the population of the school is going from 598 students of last year to 580 students, a difference of eighteen students. Indeed, if four teaching units are lost, that will mean at least twenty courses, forty credits, will certainly not be offered next year at the particular school. A course selection, of course, is very important to make sure that these students get every opportunity to move forward, especially to post-secondary education.

The big concern of this student was indeed advanced placement. With regard to the advanced placement courses, the student was very much concerned that as he moved forward into the post-secondary he would not be given the opportunity, perhaps, to go right into the courses that he needed to go into with regard to his particular discipline. He then would have to take courses to prepare him for taking additional courses. Again, this would certainly put an added cost because of the extra courses; it would cost him more in time because of the extra courses; and, of course, it would cost, at the end of it all, more money with regard to his student debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: A third particular area that these parents and students were looking at was with regard to the educational therapist. The educational therapist position is designed to assist students who, for whatever reason, cannot - and they struggle, I suppose - function in a school environment.

Under a behaviour modification program outlined and carried out by the educational therapist, these students can participate in their particular courses and indeed they can move forward in preparing themselves for eventual graduation.

Another concern that this student brought forth was the actual class sizes. Realizing that if course selection is going to be limited, if indeed the courses are going to be cut down, one of the strategies that the administration could use would be, I suppose, to increase class sizes to try and attempt to give the same quality programming next year as they did this particular year.

The school council, the parents, and all of the investors in this particular school community, certainly urge the government to look at the allocation formula, as they ask in the petition, and make sure that it is dealt with as quickly as possible so that these students can be assured that the programs they entered into in Level I - when you enter in Level I, of course, you look at your three year program, but let us hope that they can continue on with the program that they have certainly done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: So again the priority is on school programming.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and support the petition that has been presented by my colleague the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, stating that the teachers, parents and students at Herdman Collegiate petition the hon. House of Assembly to listen to the concerns we have for school programming next year in view of the fact that Herdman's teaching allocation will be reduced by four teaching units.

The students and parents who, in fact, signed this petition go on to state that it is their belief that their school staff will be treated unfairly and unjustly. In their belief, as shown in this petition, teacher losses will mean course selections offered at that school will be more constrained and limited, advanced placement courses may not be offered, the position of educational therapist will almost certainly disappear, and class size will dramatically increase.

This was one of approximately thirty presentations that were made just last evening at C.C. Loughlin Elementary in Corner Brook, a meeting that was attended by approximately 250 people. Mostly parents, I say. It was interesting the different meetings that were attended.

The meeting in Stephenville was largely attended by and presentations made by administrators. In fact, we had a past president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the present day branch president of the Appalachia branch of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, and also guidance

counsellors and school principals: in fact, one principal himself, who is the head of the administrators' group in the western region of the Province.

That meeting was interesting from the point of view that the information was factual. It was supported by a lot of statistics and a lot of information which went to support the position that the proposed cuts envisaged by government and being imposed upon the school boards in the Province would, in fact, have significant detrimental effects upon the various boards and the schools within the jurisdiction of each board.

In contrast, the meeting last night in Corner Brook was largely attended by parents. These were parents whose children attend a variety of schools in the district, in particular in Deer Lake, Pasadena, in the Bay of Islands area and in Corner Brook. These particular parents went through specific examples similar to the examples that were expressed by my colleague the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, who pointed out in great detail how their particular child or children would be affected if in fact the proposed cuts were to proceed.

I know yesterday in the House of Assembly in Question Period there were specific examples given with respect to schools in school District #4; schools, for example, on the Port au Port Peninsula, in Stephenville and the Codroy Valley area and the southwest coast. Specific examples as to how children and classrooms would be negatively impacted.

All that has to be done is simply ask the parents. I mean, this is not a situation where members or individuals that are holding a meeting are saying: We must have your information. We are simply saying: We are here to listen. We will take your concerns, we will take your questions, and we will ask the minister and the Premier exactly how they would respond to the questions that are being raised.

At last night's meeting, when you have thirty parents who just of their own volition come forward and make representation with respect to their particular child in their particular class room, that is a number that ought to be of some concern, I say to members opposite. When parents just voluntarily attend a meeting and speak genuinely and in earnest with respect to the welfare of their children that ought to be of some concern. Now, it can be said that would be expected anyway, and that is true. What is interesting is that the information and the details and the negative impact is the kind of information that this government has asked for. It is now being provided, and the obligation is now on this government to deal with this immediately.

The Premier said yesterday in the House of Assembly, as has been reported by the media, that there is some flexibility. If there is some flexibility, and if the Minister of Education has the flexibility, I would say to the hon. minister: Exercise that flexibility and deal with the concerns of these parents on a forthwith basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have just a few words in response to the petitions so ably presented by the hon. member. This is just to point out that the initiative being undertaken by the Minister of Education at this point in time is the correct and proper approach, to go to the school board officials and find out exactly what options they have looked at.

Anybody can look at a circumstance at a school in Port aux Basques, as the committee did a couple of nights ago, or a school in Corner Brook. What we already know, from even just two examples that the hon. member have brought forward, the instances mentioned with respect to Port aux Basques, none of those, not a single one of the issues raised, is as a result of any teacher reductions this year.

What the president of the PC Association for Port aux Basques, who managed the campaign of the candidate who ran against the current member for Port aux Basques, did at the public meeting organized by his buddies opposite was to spell out a five-year history of some things that had happened in the Port aux Basques-Cape Ray area, and suggested that some things have changed.

Absolutely. Everybody understands that some things have to change when you have drastic declines in your enrolment. He talked about a school that had been built and used to have 560 students, and is now housing 460 students. The other thing that was conveniently omitted was the fact that even with 460 students today they have more teachers in that school then they did six years ago when they had 560 students.

Those kinds of things are left out when you have politics dragged into the debate deliberately by the members opposite, who would go out and confess to all, dripping of sincerity, standing there in the meeting, sitting down at a PC meeting with the PC president of their association, espousing a five- or six-year history of declining enrolment.

The other thing in Port aux Basques is it had nothing to do with reform because they never, ever had multiple systems. They have always had only a single school system. All that has ever happened in Port aux Basques is the proper and appropriate dealing with drastic declining enrolments. The number of teachers is greater today than it was five years ago for an equivalent number of students. Everybody wants to try to ignore that because it is not politically to their advantage.

Last night in Corner Brook at Herdman Collegiate it was nice to talk about a plan for Herdman Collegiate. It is the same school board that a year ago made a decision to keep the school in Cox's Cove, close the school in Cox's Cove, and send them off to Lark Harbour. That went to court. Up the road, in the same district, they made a decision to keep two schools open across the road from each other that were closer together with smaller populations. The school board has several options available to it in that Corner Brook and the lower part of the Northern Peninsula area where they can still consolidate. They do not have to lose any programs. By sending twenty or thirty students ten minutes across the road they still have the available option of closing a school and increasing the program across the street.

Last year that same school board made a decision to keep the school in Cormack open. When the school year started the parents closed the school themselves, because they said: We cannot get a decent education with thirty students here in Cormack, a twenty minute bus ride away from the schools in Deer Lake. Even though the school board was not willing to exercise the option the parents themselves took it in their own hands to move their students into Deer Lake so they could get access to programs they had never, ever had access to in their lives before.

If you want to just look at Herdman and say: My goodness, Herdman is done in isolation, well, Herdman happens to be in a school district where there are thirty-five other schools. That school board has many options available to it, which is what the minister is exploring with the board to say: What have you done with all of your options? Don't talk to me just about Herdman. You have a right and a responsibility to run the whole district. Tell us your plan for the whole district.

The real plan is this. With a few exceptions, which will become known to the minister, there are more than enough teachers in the system if the appropriate decisions are made to make sure that students get increased accessibility to programs in September 1999 rather than the decrease -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - as the members opposite are trying to suggest, because it is not real. In most cases, Mr. Speaker, the real answers will be uncovered by the minister by dealing with school board staff -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - not dealing with Tory buddies of the members opposite who run their campaigns and run their district associations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the new Minister of Education that her first step in solving the problems of education would be to divorce herself from the former Minister of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition being presented here today. They are arriving just about every day, from students and concerned citizens in the Bonavista, Upper, Middle and Lower Amherst Cove, Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove area, putting their plea forward to government to ask that the five kilometres of road that connects the community of Birchy Cove with the town of Bonavista be upgraded and paved. It measures five kilometres. Two-and-a-half kilometres of this particular road is in terrible condition. The other two-and-a-half kilometres is a little bit better, I have to confess.

At the public meetings I have attended with the students, with the principal of the school, with the bus operators, with the parents in this particular area, the plea came forward loud and clear that if we cannot get the funds to complete the upgrade and pave the five kilometres of roadway, then maybe we can attend to the two-and-a-half kilometres of roadway which is in terrible condition.

Other roads in this particular area, and certainly a lot of roads in my district, are in really bad condition. This is probably the busiest stretch of roadway in the district that needs to be immediately upgraded and paved. Because of that the residents of surrounding communities of Birchy Cove, Upper, Middle and Lower Amherst Cove and Newmans Cove are saying: Look, if you are going to spend some money in this particular area, and if you do not have enough money to attend to the roads leading through our communities, then for God's sake look at this particular piece of roadway and attend to that first, because this is the roadway that the children use everyday.

The community of Upper Amherst Cove, in the wintertime there are days and days when the children have to leave the upper end of the cove and walk approximately a kilometre, where the bus would normally pick them up, up over the hill leading to the community.

It is very seldom that a telephone call comes in, in the wintertime, complaining about this. They would rather walk to the bus stop than having the bus take a chance going down over the hill and causing an accident or causing injury to the students using that particular bus.

It is not like they are looking for somebody to attend to their every need. They have put up with many handicaps already. They have put up with many shortcomings already. While they would like to see the road through their community upgraded and paved, and brought up to a standard that we, I suppose, have become accustomed to accepting today, they are satisfied if they can get this particular piece of roadway that they travel over on a continuous basis, every day of the week, back and forth to the schools in Bonavista, namely Matthew Elementary and Discovery Collegiate.

The concerns of this particular piece of roadway are not only brought forward by the parents in the area there. We have had complaints from service and delivery trucks using this piece of roadway on a daily basis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - where they have to make their route into Bonavista and into the communities going up and down Route 235.

Those particular delivery men also echo their concerns about the problem they are experiencing with the roadway there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition as presented by my colleague from Bonavista South. That makes probably three or four petitions that he has presented in the last number of days concerning this section of road in his district. He talks about damage to cars, the condition of the road and so on, but I believe what we really should be considering here - and it is probably more important than anything else - is the fact that small children have to travel on a bus and the bus ride has become, according to the member, very difficult and very uncomfortable. I believe for that reason, and that reason alone, we should certainly correct that section of road in his district.

As I said, that makes - I do not know how many petitions the member has presented. Every day he speaks out for that particular section of road. That section of road certainly needs to be done and it should be done.

I compliment the member for doing that. After all, that is one of his responsibilities as the member and he certainly does not shy away from that responsibility.

I stand today just to say a few words to support my colleague from Bonavista South and to implore the government to fix this section of road so that students can have a much better trip to school.

While I am up, I would be remiss if I did not thank the Minister of Mines and Energy for getting up a few minutes ago and responding to a petition. I thought, while he was in Houston, Texas, somebody had cut out his tongue. I am glad to see they did not and I look forward to him, over the next couple of days as he gets his tongue and his energy back, being on his feet more often.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and present a petition on behalf of residents concerned about the divided highway extension out in the Whitbourne area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why? That is not your district.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, they cannot get the Member for Bellevue to present it so they called upon me to present the petition. That is the truth, I say to the hon. minister.

I would like to read the petition: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned citizens of the Whitbourne-Trinity South region, hereby draw your attention to the existing unsafe conditions as they now exist on the Trans-Canada Highway near the Whitbourne-Blaketown exits;

WHEREAS it is the duty of government, through the enactment and enforcement of the Highway Safety Act, to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways and;

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

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government take all measures necessary to ensure that a divided highway continue past the Whitbourne-Blaketown exits and that the twinned highway include the Argentia Access Overpass;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was forwarded to me by residents of that area who are very concerned about the safety, about what is happening out in the Whitbourne area. I would just like to allude, if I could.

Over the past number of years there have been several accidents in that area, caused by the fact that the divided highway does not continue on and address the safety concern as the number one concern.

I say to the Member for Bellevue that it is too bad that representatives and constituents of his have to come to me to have a petition presented in the House of Assembly on such an important issue.

I was out in that area last week, and this issue is certainly ongoing. It is a major concern. I have been receiving several phone calls. People are very concerned that back a number of years ago, back in 1996, the government enlisted Davis Engineering to do a $40,000 study into coming up with a plan for that highway. A short time later, that plan was presented to the people in that area at a public session in Whitbourne. There were three plans put up on the wall, and people had the opportunity to discuss this and look at those plans and advise government what they thought was the number one plan for that area.

A few months later the minister of the day, now the Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, brought in a whole new plan, a whole new set of plans for that highway out there, without any public consultation with the people of that area. The people of that area are very concerned about the fact there has been no public consultation, and that the safety issue has not been addressed. I think that is certainly one of the major concerns that people in that area have.

Mr. Speaker, in November of 1998 there was a meeting held in Whitbourne. Among other things, it was learned that night that the plan that is going to be put in place, the plan that is going to be going to tender, is not one of the plans that was presented to the people of Whitbourne at the public meeting they had.

It has been known right across this country that a 100 kilometre divided highway is much safer. It is a national standard that we put on highways across this Province to address the safety issue. This standard is known as the Rural Arterial Divided Highway Standard, for a speed of 100 kilometres.

We get back to 1996, when the government hired Davis Engineering. They hired them to come up with a plan that fell into this standard, the national standards that were put in place by the RAD 100.

The plans that were presented in Whitbourne in 1996 were following the national standards. The plan that is going to be presented today, the plan that is on the table today for the development out in that area, does not address the RAD 100, does not address the safety concerns, and definitely does not address the concerns of the people in that area.

Down in the district, many small communities are commuting in this area. There is a new school planned for that area in the next few years and a lot of people from communities will be travelling into that area for the new school. There will be a lot of people who have to cross over this divided - well, it will not be a divided highway; that is what we had hoped it would have been, but there will be a lot of people pass over here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: A lot of people are concerned about school bus safety, very concerned about children's safety as it relates to the highway. It is too bad, it is sad, that we have a government that has gone back on its word to the people of that area and has changed the plans from what were originally put forward in that area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: That is why I stand here today, and I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, I have to get up because I want to set the record straight. I hate for misinformation to be presented to this House.

The people who circulated that petition misrepresented the facts. There were three or four people out there who circulated that petition that had nothing but lies in it.

The former Tory government, when they gave away the Railway, signed an agreement with the federal government to give away our railway for a few paltry dollars, as part of the plan was to divide the highway from St. John's to the Argentia Access Road. This government changed it. The major reason they changed it was because, if we were to divide the highway to the Argentia Access Road we would eliminate 125 or 130 jobs out of that area.

This government is interested in providing jobs. The former Premier who signed that agreement, it did not matter to him. He collected his pension, went to B.C., and found a job!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: And you are circulating this kind of garbage and presenting it in the House.

I have been elected in that district four times. This issue has been around for years. I have been elected four times in that district. I did door-to-door in Blaketown, Old Shop, and South Dildo, in the last election campaign. The divided highway was never brought up. Never! I pulled more votes in these three communities than I ever did, because this member represents their views. The people who have 120 jobs there want me to fight for their 120 jobs, and to save those three businesses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The Tory government closed down Holyrood, closed down Deer Lake, closed down Corner Brook, but they are not going to close down Whitbourne as long as I am the member. I can assure you of that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: We have addressed the safety. When you talk about the safety, I have been asking Works, Services and Transportation about the safety in that area for years. I have requested a street light to be put there. If you travel across Canada, you travel the Trans-Canada, you travel through Laval in Montreal, you stop on the Trans-Canada at street lights. The traffic is a lot busier than it is in Whitbourne.

I parked once at the Whitbourne Irving for three hours, and eight cars turned down the Argentia Access Road. In the last three or four years in Bull Arm, there were 6,000 workers in Bull Arm. Very few accidents occurred in that area. Most of the people came out of Conception Bay -

MR. MANNING: One death is too many.

MR. BARRETT: One death is too many. You have to remember, hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, there will an overpass on that road as it is redesigned. That intersection will be eliminated.

Did the people who circulated the petition tell the people in that area that? No. They said there would be left-turning traffic going everywhere.

When you present something in this House, make sure you get your facts right. I wish the Member for Whitbourne would stand up and speak for the people of Whitbourne, because they do not support this particular petition!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to tell Monty's, do you want to tell Moorlands, and do you want to tell the Irving service station: Close you doors next week because we are going to divide the highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Get up and speak and express you point of view! The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who got elected the last time didn't get back the last time. If you want to get back in this House, represent the people who elected you. Do not go travelling around the Province listening to lies about schools being closed and teachers being laid off. Get out in Whitbourne and represent the people who elected you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, on a point of order.

MR. HEDDERSON: The hon. member just directed lies towards me. I am not collecting lies.

When I want to stand on my feet I will stand on my feet and do what I have to do, not by the prompting of someone on that side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order that the hon. member raised, I do not think there were any accusations hurled towards the hon. member. There was really no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Motion 8, first reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipalities", Bill 14.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipalities", carried. (Bill 14)

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, to move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the Granting of Supply to Her Majesty.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could get the attention of the Government House Leader - well, the Opposition House Leader, the hopeful Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't got either one other there; the deputy, deputy, deputy, deputy.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I call the Heading of Executive Council.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are debating the Estimates of Executive Council.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am only too glad to stand today and ask a few questions with respect to Executive Council. Before I get into that, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment about a few comments that were just made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). You have to be relevant.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is all relevant, because we are talking about Executive Council. This is a money bill. We are talking about money, Mr. Chairman. There is a lot of latitude given for money.

With respect to the Whitbourne intersection, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat just for a second.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01 of Executive Council.

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

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

Anyway, with respect to the explanation about relevancy, about the Whitbourne highway intersection and the money that is going to be wasted on that intersection, because this is another option that has been put forward. They had three options, Mr. Chairman. This one was not one of them, the one that is being put forward now.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has already admitted that there will be more money spent on that intersection down the road. So why not do it right the first time? That is all we have been asking for, and that is what the petition has been asking for, Mr. Chairman; do it right the first time. They are going to waste $3 or $4 million on that intersection, come back in a few years time and change it again. Now, does that makes sense? I don't say it makes sense.

With respect to the comments of the Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, saying they are going to get a copy of Hansard and send it out to Monty's, the comments made by the Member for Bellevue: We can stand in this House of Assembly and say what we want to say any time of the day when the House is open and send that to Monty's also, and give the right and truthful explanation, Mr. Chairman, of what is happening with respect to that intersection and who is for it and who is against it. That is the reality of the situation.

Now, with respect to the Estimates of the Office of the Executive Council, Mr. Chairman: I expect the President of Treasury Board is going to be answering questions on this topic; and I would have questions for the Premier. Also, I would imagine the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs would answer questions because his department falls under this too. Is that not right?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't speak.

MR. J. BYRNE: He doesn't speak? He doesn't speak often, we know that, Mr. Chairman, but we know you do speak.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to go on with a few comments. One thing I would notice, Mr. Chairman - I went and got the Estimates for the year 1996, and in those Estimates were the previous ones for 1995-1996. Now, that was the year that the present Premier took over. I wanted to compare what was happening when this Premier took over and what is happening today.

One of my first concerns, I will say to the President of Treasury Board, is the Premier's Office. I noticed here in the Premier's Office, salaries of $732,900. That was in 1999-2000, but back in 1996-1997 there was $99,800. That is a difference of some $650,000 in the Premier's Office. I know there has to be a legitimate explanation for this vast, vast difference. I am sure all the political buddies of the Premier cannot be hired and put in the Premier's Office. I know the Premier would not do that. There has to be some reasonable explanation.

While the minister is looking at that, I can give her some indication of what has happened here, because $951,000 was spent on the Premier's Office, in total, in this years' Budget. Back then it was some $930,000, but there was no section in the Premier's Office for administration so I am wondering what is happening there.

Executive Support is in a different location also. Now I am curious. If the President of Treasury Board can answer this - she may not be able to answer it today, but if she could answer it or check with the Premier - I am curious to know the staffing of the Premier's Office. How many people were there with the previous Premier, and how many people are there with the present Premier? Is it the same number? Has it increased? Has it decreased? If you look at the salaries, you would certainly believe that there has been an increase in the staff in the Premier's Office.

Now we know, if you look at the salaries, that the Premier's staff, the staff in his office, have had some increases while civil servants' salaries were frozen. While their salaries have been frozen for the past eight, nine or ten years - since this government took over - we know that the staff in the Premier's Office have had increases in salaries.

We know also that the government tried to explain it in the way that they were reclassified. If the people in the Premier's Office should be reclassified, wouldn't people in the civil service be entitled to be reclassified also? That is the question I would like the minister to address when she gets up.

The Premier' Office also - here is another one - under Transportation and Communication, 2.1.01.03, there was $145,000 budgeted. The previous Premier, a little over three years ago, $58,000 - a difference of $97,000. That is quite a lot of money, I say to the President of the Treasury Board, $97,000 in a matter of three years. Why would they require so much money for travel?

We all know that the Premier likes to travel. When he was the Minister of Fisheries in the government in Ottawa, he was the most expensive minister there. He spent more money on travel than four or five other ministers combined. Transportation and Communications, $145,000, up from $58,000.

MR. BARRETT: He accomplished more than any other minister (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Does that make sense to you, I say to the Member for Bellevue? Do you support that?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: You support that?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Let it be on the record that the Member for Bellevue supports extravagance in the Premier's Office. That is what the member for Bellevue just said.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't say that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, that is what you told me.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You did. You just said you supported it, an increase of $58,000 up to $145,000, I say, Mr. Chairman.

To me, what other explanation can it be but abuse of travel? We

know that the Premier goes all over the world looking to create business, he says. Where is all the business?

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member said that the hon. Member for Bellevue supported extravagance in the Premier's Office. That is not what I said.

You were talking about when he was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and what I did say was that I supported him when he was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because he accomplished more than any other Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: When his political cousin was the minister, he closed down the fishery. He tried to open it all up. Do not misrepresent what I am saying here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I never heard your ruling on that point of order. What was that?

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am really surprised. The Member for Bellevue must be taking lessons from the Government House Leader, I say, on points of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of clarification.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, point of clarification is more like it.

I say to the present Treasury Board also - I hope she is making notes here now because what we could do... I do not know if we should ask a question, sit down, and see if the President of Treasury Board wants to get up and answer it. At this rate, I am going to be here for quite a long time.

MS THISTLE: We have all night.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, but what I am afraid of is that the President of the Treasury Board will not keep accurate account of my questions and respond to all my questions. We get up and down, so I expect that when I sit down after my ten minutes -

MS THISTLE: I am a good note taker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I will take the President of the Treasury Board at her word, that she is a good note taker.

Also under that section, they have Supplies. What was budgeted in that section for Supplies under the Premier's Office, I say to the President of the Treasury Board, was $19,400. They actually spent $30,000 and they had $19,400 budgeted again. To me, I would like to know what that extra $11,000 was for, in the Premier's Office under Supplies.

Mr. Chairman, also, we know now to run an efficient office you have to have supplies, no doubt about that. If you have it budgeted for $19,400 - again you would assume that the Office, from previous experience, would know what kind of supplies they would need. Obviously, if they went up to $30,000, it is an abnormality. An explanation was required, Mr. Chairman. It is an abnormality. It is not consistent to what has previously been budgeted for and what is budgeted for this year, so that is an abnormality. That is on page 16 under 2.1.01, under Supplies, .04.

Also, under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there was budgeted $5,000 and they spent $5,600. They have $5,000 budgeted again. I would like to know why we have to budget $5,000 each year for the Premier's Office. Is the carpet worn out that much from people in to see him, back and forth, that he has to replace the carpet every day? Why do we have to have $5,000 budgeted for Property, Furnishings and Equipment in the Premier's office every year? I have been in the Premier's office once or twice. Not with the present Premier. I was up there a few years ago when I was begged to run for the Liberals in 1988. I did not run. I had enough sense not to. I remember the office as being very plush.

When I was mayor of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove I had an occasion to visit with the former premier. The office appeared to be very plush to me at that time. I walked in and sank to my knees in the carpet. Now they are looking for money for furnishings.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I cannot believe what I am hearing. I know the hon. gentleman must be speaking in jest. To stand up there and say that the former premier, the Chief Justice of the Province, would have an office that was full of plush carpet. The truth of the manner is that the man went in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: I can say to the hon. gentlemen I was there more than one time.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that the hon. gentleman, the man who is the Chief Justice of this Province, serving in such an august position, cut everything to the bones. I know the hon. gentleman would not want to mislead us. If he wants to go back before 1989, I can tell him there was a smell of cigar smoke. There were fumes from the big limousines whistling around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I just had to correct the hon. gentleman and tell him that since 1989, when the Chief Justice of this Province got elected -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I am on a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman is on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Sit down and wait until I finish, and then you can get a shot at it.

Mr. Chairman, I have to tell him that since 1989 things have changed dramatically in this Province, and the Chief Justice was one of the first people who started it off.

CHAIR: Order, please.

There is no point of order.

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

CHAIR: On another point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have clarification from the Government House Leader. Did the former premier call people to his office when he told them they were not going into Cabinet?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) if I could (inaudible) -

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, we have the Government House Leader up trying to correct me. Yes, I was exaggerating slightly to make the point. I was not to my knees in carpet, I was up to my ankles in carpet. (Inaudible), to my ankles.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is pretty deep carpet then, isn't it? Deeper.

I ask the Chair a question. We are up ten and ten. I understand that is the way it is going to be. If I ask a question and someone on the other side gets up to answer, do I start my new ten minutes again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: So once there is an intervening speaker my ten minutes starts again. Is that correct?

CHAIR: Points of order don't count, though.

MR. J. BYRNE: Points of order don't count. I am on leave now anyway. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to speak and ask a few questions on Government House. I decided I wouldn't address the Government House estimates. I think the Members for Bonavista South and Conception Bay South are more interested in asking questions on that topic. I am just going to pass off on that in this point in time unless, of course, they don't ask certain questions that come to my mind and don't come to them. Then I will ask a question.

Let's go to what is under the Cabinet Secretariat, I say to the minister, under Executive Support, 2.2.01, the Salaries are $684,600. That is down somewhat from the previous year, but if you compare that back to 1996-1997 we have $660,000. It is still gone up by some $24,000 there. Again, is that due to reclassification within the Executive Support salaries, or is it a new position hired from that time?

Also, under that same section, I say to the President of Treasury Board, under Supplies, here is a curious one. Because we have budgeted - or government has budgeted; I shouldn't say we have budgeted - $57,600. Under the previous administration it was $24,100. That is significant. There is some $33,000 more for supplies. I would like to know what those supplies would be and why such a drastic increase, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

Also, under Professional Services, you spent $10,000 last year and this year you have $32,700 budgeted, an increase of some $22,700. I would like to know what those Professional Services are, and why the necessity for such a large amount of money.

Purchased Services has gone up by $20,900. Again, I would like to know what those Purchased Services are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: She doesn't want to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. I will just give you leave.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. and that we would take a recess for supper from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: The motion is that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Those against, `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: Carried.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Under the same section 2.2.01, Executive Support, under Purchased Services, I was asking before I sat down what those Purchased Services were and are, and why it is gone up to $20,900.

Also, under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, I have a question. Again, I am always intrigued by this subhead, 2.2.01. It has gone up from $5,000 that was spent last year to $20,000 this year.

I have asked the minister a fair number of questions. I want to give her an opportunity to answer, and then I will get up again with some more, maybe.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I respond to the Member for Cape St. Francis, I would like to just give you a general overview of Executive Council.

Today we will review and debate the Estimates for the Executive Council heads of expenditure which includes the Lieutenant Governor's establishment, Office of the Executive Council and Treasury Board Secretariat.

To begin I would like to make a few short comments on each of the programs we will be considering today. The Lieutenant Governor's establishment's costs are self-explanatory and need little comment since they are the costs associated with the operations of the official residence and associated salary costs.

The Executive Council is responsible for the overall operation of the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador. Funding is included for Office of the Premier, Cabinet Secretariat, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, and the Communications and Consultation branch.

The funding relates to the salary and the operating costs of the Premier's Office and the support costs associated with the operations of the Cabinet and its various committees. Appropriations are also provided for the administration of the Offshore Fund, Economical Renewal Agreement Administration costs, costs associated with the Advisory Councils on Economic and Social Policy, and various Protocol expenditures. Funding is also provided for such initiatives as the Strategic Social Plan and Women's Policy initiatives. All of these activities are described in the Estimates and need no further comment at this time.

As President of Treasury Board, I have the responsibility of ensuring that the public service has sound fiscal and administrative policies that support the effective delivery of government programs. The fiscal pressures of the 1990s forced all government departments, including mine, to be innovative in providing high-quality programs to our clients. I am pleased to say that we have continued to support our clients with high-quality human resource, information technology and financial management support. This is a credit to our employees.

My department comprises four main lines of business which are: Budgeting and Systems, Human Resources, Strategic Human Resource Policy, and Office of the Comptroller General.

The responsibilities of the Treasury Board Secretariat are many and considerable varied. In addition to the support provided to government departments many of our activities, particularly those relating to fiscal management and human resources, have significant external impacts. As a result, we are keenly aware of the impact that our decisions have on the public.

Some of the important services we provide include: negotiating collecting agreements with thirty-seven bargaining units; developing policies and standards for government departments and agencies in the area of human resource management, information technology, financial management and compensation; performing job evaluation services for departments and agencies; preparing and monitoring the annual financial plan for the Province; leading the development of important information systems that allow government departments to better manage their resources; accounting, auditing and other financial supports to departments.

With respect to the department's budget, Treasury Board, like all other government departments, has significantly reduced spending since the mid-1990s. We will continue to spend prudently while providing the best possible service to our clients within government and also externally to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now I will endeavour to answer the many questions presented by the Member for Cape St. Francis so far, as I am quite certain there will be many more to follow in the evening hours.

His first questions dealt with the Premier's Office, and that would be found under Executive Council, page 16. The first one he referred to was the salary division. I would have to say to the member opposite that the full amount under that estimate was $951,300. Salaries relates to the cost of fifteen permanent and one contractual position, and it also reflects the non-recurrence of the twenty-seventh payroll period. I have indicated the number of people that are employed today. I do not have the Estimates from 1996, but what I would say to the member opposite, if he would like to put - or maybe I can rely on the Hansard. If you would like the information of the employee level compared from 1996 to 1998 I will be able to present that to him later.

The member opposite made a reference also about salary increases through reclassification. I would have to say to the member opposite that reclassification occurs all the time. We get requests for hundreds of reclassifications through this department, so that would not be an unusual event.

Regarding Transportation and Communications, I would have to say that under travel, the execution of the roles and responsibilities of the Premier's Office require that the Premier travel within the Province and outside to represent the Province's interests. With regards to travel, these are normal costs that include telephone costs, fax machines, cellular phones, and it also, I would like to say, includes funding to cover the cost of travel by any member of the House of Assembly authorized to represent or accompany the hon. Premier at official functions.

With reference to Supplies, supplies are basically routine office supplies, which would also include working lunches. They would come under that heading as well. Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, that would be the normal cost of office furniture and equipment.

The next questions came under the Cabinet Secretariat. That would be referenced under page 16, heading 2.2.01. I think you pretty well indicated almost every heading there. Salaries represent eleven permanent and one contractual position. Again, I have to say it also reflects the non-reoccurrence of the twenty-seventh payroll period.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to take her seat. It being 4:00 p.m. on Thursday I have to read the questions for the Late Show.

The first question for today's Late Show is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Developmental and Rural Renewal re my question on post-TAGS funding. That is from the Member for Lewisporte.

The second question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Education re my question on school reform. That is from the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

The third question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs re my question on Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. That is from the Member for Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The next question under Cabinet Secretariat, 2.2.01, Executive Support, was referenced in Supplies. That amount there represents routine office supplies. Funding is also provided to cover the cost of working lunches and dinners for Cabinet and its various committee meetings.

Let's go to Professional Services, 2.2.01.05. These are anticipated consulting services on issues that arise throughout the year. For Purchased Supplies, 2.2.01.06, the cost involved there is related to meeting rooms rentals and all expenses associated with Cabinet and its various committee meetings, official entertaining, photocopier charges, and printing costs for all division of Cabinet Secretariat.

Your final question in that heading, 2.2.01.07, under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, relates to the purchase of office furniture for all divisions of Cabinet Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I have just a few comments on the answers by the President of Treasury Board. Under 2.1.01, the Premier's Office, I asked her about Supplies. It went from $19,400, which was what was budgeted, up to $30,000. She said that would include working lunches. We have about $10,000 spent on working lunches over the past year. That is just from that one office. They must spend some time in that department.

Also, under Executive Support, under Supplies, I asked her about going from $24,100 up to $57,600 -

MR. TULK: Point of order.

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The hon. President of Treasury Board said no such nonsense. The hon. gentleman knows it. Neither did she bring up about the $40,000 that was spent in one month for cigars between 1989 and 1990. Cigars and - I will not name the rest. She did not bring that up either, but we will bring it up if he wants us to!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Further to that, I say to the Government House Leader, under Executive Support, 2.2.01, under Supplies, it has gone from $24,100 up to $57,600. In that she said that included working lunches also.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am only saying what the minister said. Mr. Chairman, when the President of Treasury Board stood she said, about the Lieutenant Governor's establishment, that it would require little comment on the Lieutenant-Governor's budget. I would expect and imagine that there will be members on this side of the House who will have a few questions on that, and it may require a bit more than a little comment.

Also on her comments, she talked about the public service and it being an efficient delivery of services. With respect to the public service, let me talk about the Public Service Commission. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go to the Estimates Committee with respect to the Public Service Commission. I asked questions of the Minister of Finance a couple of years ago when they changed the policy, for what reason, in hiring. They went from the Public Service Commission to the line departments, and they do not have to go through the Public Service Commission anymore. They tried to rationalize that by saying that the departments know who they want to hire and they would know more about the individual.

Back in 1974 the Public Service Commission was established, and it was established for a good reason, and that was to keep the political tentacles out of the hiring of the civil service. Now we know that in the civil service today there are many people hired under contract and there are many people hired on temporary. Why are they hired there? Because they do not have to go through the Public Service Commission, so they can have political appointments all over the place.

There are departments now, people hired -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen now, can you imagine? The Member for Carbonear (inaudible). I was not here. I can't complain about what you did two years ago, for what the Premier did before you were elected. You had no say in it. I can say this: you stood in your place and voted against the nurses. That will come back to haunt you, I will say. I don't expect you will have a nurse's licence plate on your car, will you? That will come back to haunt you, I would say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). What's his name?

MR. J. BYRNE: Whose name? Listen to this now, Mr. Chairman. Can you believe this? Just listen to what is coming from that side of the House. We have the previous administration that hired the Public Service Commission, that put the Public Service Commission in place back in 1974 so that politics would not get involved. We had the previous administration that put the Public Tender Act in place that we saw ripped apart last year. Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they do?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ripped apart the Public Tender Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. J. BYRNE: You did! Yes, you and a few more of you on that side of the House. Now I can't say that the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace did that or the Member for Bay of Islands, he had nothing to do with it, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You were here. You were part of the government that did it. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What did you do? You made amendments. You were a small part at that time. How did you do it? You made amendments to the Public Tender Act. You changed the Public Tender Act, that is what you did, and you were part of the government that did that. You were part of the administration that tried to sell off Hydro and supported the former premier, your buddy, to the hilt. You supported him. Everybody on that side of the House supported him, everyone. Even the member for -

MR. FITZGERALD: No, the Member for Bonavista North did not support the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. That fellow there. What are you the member for? Virginia Waters! The Member for Virginia Waters. I thought he was going to oppose it.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to just make one thing clear here for the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, Mr. Chairman, my colleague, that when he refers to the Member for Bonavista North supporting the former premier, the former administrator of this Province, he is 100 per cent wrong.

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: When I say that he supported the previous premier I don't mean that he supported as a buddy, not with his arms around him, `huggy-kissy,' that type of thing, but he did not speak against it. He did not stand and get in the media and speak against it.

So we have the previous administration putting in the Public Service Commission, the Public Tender Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell me something. Who was it said (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: I would not have a clue. I was not around here. I mean, that was when I was just out of high school. It wouldn't be Mr. Maynard, would it? (Inaudible).

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I remember when I went to work for the civil service. I worked in the Howley Building on Higgins Line. I had to go for an interview at the Public Service Commission, with three people interviewing me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Seven years. Yes, I pulled it all out. Seven years I worked at the Howley Building on Higgins Line, and I left it and started my own business. I went out and created jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As many as forty or fifty people I hired on in the summertime. That is what I did.

I had to go to the Public Service Commission for an interview with three people who I did not know. I was interviewed, and it came down to three people and they were recommended to the minister. The minister did not know me from Adam at that time, but I got hired because it was an independent system.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. J. BYRNE: It was 1974.

Can you imagine today, if there was a position advertised and I applied for it and was recommended as number one out of the three, and it went to, say, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, do you think I would get hired?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you would.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely. Not at all.

That is what is going on today. We have the President of Treasury Board trying to rationalize that there is a better system today for hiring people in the civil service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the minister?

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't even know. It wasn't a Liberal minister. Then, by the way, if people are trying to insinuate on that side of the House that I was a Tory and that is why I got hired, because of the party at that time, I wasn't associated with any party at that time.

MR. FUREY: You were a nobody.

MR. J. BYRNE: I was a nobody when it came to politics at that time - the Minister of Tourism is correct - when it came to politics. I decided back in the winter of 1993 that I was going to run for politics. I was mayor of a small town and I decided I was going to run. So, what did I do?

AN HON. MEMBER: You did a poll.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I never did a poll. I never knew what a poll was, other than what dogs use them for - election polls.

I looked at the administration that was in power that day - by the way, which I was asked to run for back in 1989 and I had enough sense not to and I didn't. Then I looked at the platforms, I looked at the policies, I looked at what the PC Party was, what the Liberal Party was supposed to be, but half of the Liberal Party are former Tories now anyway. Half the ministers over there are former Tories.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Speaking of polls, there is today's poll, The Telegram. If the Tories had their convention this weekend, could Ed Byrne get elected as Premier? Absolutely, 88 per cent, 1,838 votes; not against Brian Tobin, 162. There you go. The Telegram, 1,838. That is ten, fifteen times (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, this is what the polls are for. I would not even bother to bring that up only for the people on that side of the House brought up about polls.

Another thing; the President of Treasury Board, when she was on her feet, made this statement: Treasury Board has reduced spending since the mid-1990s.

Let's just have a look. In 1996, that is pretty close to the mid-1990s, the Executive Council spent $19,957,500. What do you think it is this year, Mr. Chairman? Take a guess. I will even let you speak up. Take a guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you are not going to, are you? You are independent, see.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would not want to interrupt the hon. member's flow of thought.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is good. Thank you.

This year it is $26,182,200. That is an increase of over $6 million. Then, the President of Treasury Board is saying it is a decrease. Now, get this: In the Budget, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the Municipal Operating Grants last year - this is from memory, now, I could be close - I think was something like $24,552,000. I could check my book here. It could be $25 million but, it is somewhere around there. This year they are getting something like $21 million, which is $3 million less.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance will stand in their place and say that we are giving them an extra $3 million. Now, how could that be? They got $24 million last year, they are getting $21 million this year, and they stand in their place and say they are getting an extra $3 million.

Now, that is the same kind of math that the President of Treasury Board just used when she said that they have cut spending since the mid-1990s, and they are up by $6 million.

I would say the former Minister of Education, the now Minister of Mines and Energy, that is the kind of math he uses, and he has been teaching certain people within this government his math. The Minister of Fisheries is in his chair, again, finally.

I believe we saw a prime example of the Premier starting to learn from this side of the House, when he said yesterday that he is going to look at tax cuts in the next couple of years. I remember two months ago, during the election, when we proposed tax cuts, it was ludicrous, it was ridiculous, it was this, it was that. The Premier is finally learning.

We know the Minister of Fisheries is finally listening to the Member for Bonavista South, the fisheries critic. He is finally starting to learn something. It took three years -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not at all, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

We can see it starting to creep in. We know the Minister of Education is starting to us too. We are starting to see her story change a small bit. The other day when it was brought up in the House of Assembly by the critic for education, I believe, that this person was let go in the fine arts department, the minister stood in her place and said that was fine; an ordinary teacher could teach music and it was not a problem.

The next day we heard on CBC the minister being interviewed, and after the interview what was the comment made by the interviewer? What a difference a day makes.

We have the Minister of Education learning from us, we have the Minister of Finance learning from us, we have the Premier learning from this side of the House, and we have the Minister of Fisheries learning from this side of the House. Therefore, the only one left, the only major player left that we need to convince that something needs to be done with the economy, with what is happening in the Province today, is the Minister of Health. She is not listening to us yet. She seems to be sticking to her guns. She is not making a lot of sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, (inaudible) something in that glass?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, my son, any time; go for it. Here, have a drop of water.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Water?

MR. J. BYRNE: Water.

Now I will get back to my notes. Just for information, I say to the Minister of the Treasury Board, you should be careful. You can take a bit of advice from us. I know you are not high and mighty like some of the ones on the other side. You have not reached that level yet. You will take some advice from us. When you are going to say that you cut spending, make sure that you have compared it to the previous budgets, because I have done that.

Now, back to questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We will get a few now.

On page seventeen - I am after covering one page so far. Under Cabinet Secretariat, Social Policy Analysis, Salaries are $157,300. That is up from $114,000 last year. When the previous Premier was there, back in 1995-1996, before the present one, Salaries under Social Policy Analysis were $50,600. That is an increase of $101,000. I would like to know why the increase. How many more staff were hired on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo asked why I'm yelling. Mr. Chairman, I have adopted that style of speaking in this House of Assembly because normally when I am on my feet the crowd on the other side are so loud and rambunctious and concerned about what I am going to say that they try to drown me out. Therefore, I've spoken -

AN HON. MEMBER: There are ladies and gentlemen on the other side, not the crowd.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, is the word "crowd" parliamentary? Because if it is, that is the best word I can use to describe the other side. So I am being very polite, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

Anyway, that is a point I say to the President of Treasury Board. If she could -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? (Inaudible). Also, Mr. Chairman, and President of Treasury Board, under Section 2.2.04, under Offshore Fund - Administration, we have Salaries again of $77,600. That has gone up from $45,600, some $32,000. I would like to know why the increase there.

It seems to me that government over the past number of years, from 1989 to very recently, there were employees let go right, left and centre in this Province. There was no heart. I remember standing in my place before in this House of Assembly and saying that the government had no heart. They were like the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz, looking for a heart and could not find it. Now I know of families that had a husband and a wife, in the same family, let go the same day in the civil service. That was pretty cruel stuff.

Yet, when we look at certain areas within government, it seems to say that that staffing did not suffer like the ministers' offices, or the executive support of different offices and what have you. I ask the question: Why?

MR. FUREY: Jack, you are starting to make Neanderthal man sound intelligent.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Tourism, have you looked in the mirror lately?

MR. FUREY: Have I?

MR. J. BYRNE: Have you? Anyway, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you?

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not need to. I do not have to worry about my hair, like some people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) worried about my hair? (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes. I thought it was a good job. That is why you have to look in the mirror all the time.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to go on to page 18. I have three pages covered out of how many, I wonder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Moving too fast?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going too fast, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. On page 18, Mr. Chairman, for the President of Treasury Board -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not comprehending the full gist of what you are saying.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will not go there.

Under Economic Renewal Administration, Section 2.2.05.03, under Transportation and Communications, they had budgeted $10,000 and it went up to $20,000. The questions that I've asked before, the minister gets on her feet and she is very general in her answers. I would like if she could be a bit more specific on what this money has been spent on, that extra $10,000. Also, on the same page, under the Advisory Councils On Economic And Social Policy, under Section 2.2.06.03, under Transportation and Communications -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) connect the dots (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? The minister is listening. Anyway, under Section 2.2.06.03, Transportation and Communications, $78,500 is budgeted for this year and that is up from $20,000. Why do you need an extra $58,500 there? By the way, that is three times what it was in 1996-1997. I'm just curious as to why there is such a dramatic increase from 1996-1997 and from 1998-1999.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Take a look around. Yes, sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible), but you know something? I say to you, I will fill you in on something later on.

Mr. Chairman, in 2.2.06.05, Purchased Services, they spent $5,000 last year and this year they are up to $20,000. That is four times what they spent last year. Why? If you are talking about balancing the Budget, why is it necessary to be tripling these figures all the time?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister understands. It is under Purchased Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: What number?

MR. J. BYRNE: 2.2.06.06, Purchased Services. It went from $5,000 to $20,000, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) look at the title, read the title carefully: Advisory Councils on Economic and Social Policy. They had to get research done. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Why did you only have $5,000 last year and be up to $20,000 this year? What is the necessity for that? That is the question I am asking. What is the problem?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) 4:30 p.m. (inaudible) do the Late Show we have to rise the Committee.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: 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 4:30 p.m., we move to the Late Show.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to put forward the question as put forward by the Member for Lewisporte. I think it was Monday or Tuesday of this week he asked the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal if he would fill him in on some information as it relates to TAGS III funding, post-TAGS funding, the son of TAGS, I guess it was.

At that particular time the Member for Lewisporte raised some concerns to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. If I recall correctly, some of the concerns he raised were: number one, if there was funding going to be made available; number two, if there was funding, the amount of funding that would be put in place, and the nature of the spending of that particular money.

I am sure my district is not unlike other districts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where we continually get calls asking if there is going to be any more TAGS funding brought forward this particular year. I have implemented a number of calls to the local HRDC office and asked the local HRDC office if there is going to be funding and when it is going to be made available. Up until now I have an answer that as of May 26 they will know how much funding is put in place for each office and the direction that the funding will be spent.

As you know, the last amount of funding was divided in a couple of ways. There were two types of projects. One was a project which was called a job creation partnership, where the people who took part in that particular program did not receive insurable earnings, and the other one was a job creation project, where people went to work, received approximately $8 an hour, and their work was insurable.

The member put forward the question as to if there was going to be money, how it was going to be spent, and if his department was going to be part of that. Because there are all kinds of rumours and speculations out there that maybe this last amount of funding is going to be a partnership between the provincial and federal governments. If it is, that is fair enough. Let us know how it is going to be spent, let us know who qualifies.

I think the people out in rural areas where this money was directed to help should have those answers now, because a lot of the people do not have an income and a lot of the people are waiting for those projects to start. You can call them make-work projects, you can call them what you want, but it is important. Some of those projects were very important and did very worthwhile jobs.

The minister took the question very lightly and flicked back to the member who was asking about things that happened in the past, about mid-distance trawlers and all this kind of things. That is not what people wanted to hear. We have to stop living in the past. We have to stop bringing up the foolish ways of spending in the past. We have all been tarred with it, both sides of this House, and we should get away from that and talk about things that are relevant today, and give direction to the people out there who are begging to know what their future holds.

I say to the minister that just a few weeks ago I had a meeting with his cousin in Ottawa, George Baker, and he talked about, at that particular time, a pot of money going to each MP: seven MPs, he talked about between $70 million and $80 million. He talked about the money being spent for tourism, directed completely towards tourism. I have no problem with that. I have a couple of good tourism projects on the go in my district that can very well use that money, and will do wonders with it, I say to the member opposite.

If there is one place we are lacking, I say to the minister, is that we just come forward in spending $4.2 billion or $4.4 billion in trying to compensate fishermen, fish plant workers, people affected in communities by the moratorium, and we've spent very little money on fisheries infrastructure.

We heard the Minister of Fishery and Aquaculture talk today about $700 million being brought forward in export value of fish products this year, in 1999. If we believe that there is a future in the fishery, I say to the minister that some of this money should be directed towards fisheries infrastructure. Here we are seeing an increase of double the quota as it was in 1997 up to 1998, another 50 per cent increase this year in 3PS. Hopefully we will see a commercial fishery in 2J-3KL. For the most part our fisheries infrastructure is falling down around our ears. I think it is time we either admitted that we are going to have a fishery - and if we do we should direct money to improving fisheries infrastructure in rural Newfoundland and Labrador -, and if we are not, be truthful with the people and move on.

There are communities in my area and rural Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - where fisheries infrastructure has been neglected and is falling down around our ears. I plead with the minister that if there is funding coming forward to have some of this money directed towards those communities so that the fishermen might be able to carry out their chores and their profession, having the infrastructure put in place to help them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that the program that is being carried out - and I think it was under the guidance of my friend the Minister of Fisheries when he was the acting Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, and the federal officials from ACOA, and the Regional Economical Development Boards - those people have developed a program. Some of it was announced in January. Some $81 million dollars is going to be spent to put in place some of the strategies and priorities of the Economic Development Boards, some of the communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would listen, I can say to him that the TAGS money and that improvement in the fisheries infrastructure will be undertaken, make no mistake about that; that the provincial Minister of Fisheries will be heard loud and clear to ensure that where infrastructure is needed to carry out and to diversify the economy, and to build on what is already a very, very successful fishery... We just had a statement from him today which shows, I believe, that the fishing industry this year will have a greater export value than any time in the history of this Province.

He is over there now bellyaching, asking what we are going to do with the TAGS money. Are we going to look after a bit of fisheries infrastructure? The hon. gentlemen should know that the Minister of Fisheries and this minister, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, would not stand by and see fisheries infrastructure needed in this Province, if it meant that you had to develop the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, he said that people did not want to hear about the past, that I brought up the other day, that the former Minister of Fisheries, the man who sits third, the Deputy, Deputy House Leader over there - did not want to hear about that stuff because that was the past.

My reason for bringing it up - if the hon. gentlemen would listen -was quite clear. I wanted to illustrate just one example, and there are many more, of what that gentleman did and what that government did when they were in power, about how he spent $29 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I want to tell you why we are having so much difficulty today in seeing that the necessary fisheries infrastructure is put in place. Twenty-nine million dollars was spent on four middle-distance boats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty million on Trans City.

MR. TULK: Wait, I am not finished with him yet. Twenty-nine million dollars spent on four middle-distance boats. How much did the government realize from them when they sold them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: How much fish did they catch? They did not catch enough fish for brewis.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) pot.

MR. TULK: Not enough to fill a brewis pot. How much did the provincial government get from it?

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

MR. TULK: You do not want to hear the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member opposite, if those middle-distance trawlers were so bad and so useless, ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture why he has $100,000 this year in his budget to carry out repairs to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I want to tell the hon. gentlemen that there is nothing in the budget. Let me say to the hon. gentlemen, wrong again.

MR. EFFORD: We do not have a boat any more.

MR. TULK: He does not even have a boat. Now, the truth of the matter is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am on a point of order. I am on your point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker ruled that there was no point of order.

MR. TULK: Oh, did he? You are right again, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal said that there was no mid-distance trawler any more and there was no money being spent. I ask him to refer to the estimates in the minister's own budget, where it shows $100,000 of taxpayers' dollars being spent on the mid-distance trawler presently being used by the Labrador shrimp or some fishing company on the Labrador Coast.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, and the hon. member's time is up.

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

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

Leader.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentlemen that whatever this Minister of Fisheries is doing still reflects the $24 million in debt that minister left over there. He may very well have to spend a little bit more money to clean up the mess that you left there still in 1989. I doubt that, too. It is possible that he has to clean up the mess that the hon. gentlemen and his crew left.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question, of course, would be for the Minister of Education. I was not satisfied today with the response that I received from the minister. I again asked her, was she convinced that there are problems with programming that are going to show up in September of 1999 because of the teacher cutbacks - 182 - and that it has been going on now for any number of weeks.

I was challenged here in the House to provide examples to the minister, and it appears that she has not been satisfied with the examples that I have given her, even though these examples are gotten through contact with the schools, through the administrators, through the school boards. We have brought this to the attention of the House each and every day, when the opportunity arises, but again the minister remains unconvinced.

In recent days I have had the opportunity to see firsthand, by speaking with students, parents, administrators, trustees, directors, that the allocations of this year are going to have serious, serious effects on many of the schools in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now I was very much awed at the ability of the people, especially parents, who over the last couple of days have indicated to me that the promise that was given by this government regarding reform has not been kept; that the restructuring that has taken place over the last number of years, especially over the last three years, that this restructuring has caused a lot of - I should not say undue but it has caused a lot of sacrifice on the part of parents and students.

These parents and students have indicated that, when they have gone through all of that particular sacrifice, what they cannot understand is that by closing out schools in small communities, by moving to larger centres, by placing their children on buses to move them out of their home community to place them in another community, that they were convinced to do that. They were convinced that by doing it, it would bring about a better quality of education for their children. But I can tell you, from what I have seen firsthand in talking to parents and students, they have been duped. The closing of many of the schools, the restructuring, has not brought about what was anticipated. The stand that they have taken is that the cuts cannot take place any more, that there has to be a line drawn and the line is drawn by many of these parents, many of these students, and they are saying no more cuts.

The restructuring is, I would say, a good 85 per cent to 90 per cent finished. The schools that now exist in this school year, and certainly at the beginning of next school year, have and will be able to cater to the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not anticipate very many other school closings in the next few years, but it is now that this government has to get to the task of providing at least a level of programming that is similar to the level of programming now, in September of 1999.

Again, there was a lot of frustration, there was a lot of disappointment expressed by the parents at these public meetings, and it was disappointment because again what they were promised was not what they got.

I would also like to report, Mr. Speaker, that these public meetings that we are holding are going even beyond the programming. There are more problems that are out there. Again, I am also pleased to report that in the last couple of days I had occasion to visit a number of schools. There is no doubt that there are great schools out there, there are great students out there, and there are indeed good things going on in education today.

We want to make sure that these positive things are extended to all the students of Newfoundland and Labrador; that every student in Newfoundland and Labrador be given an opportunity to have a quality education, to have the programming that was promised to them in reform that is most important; that we hold the line; that if this reform is to move forward, it is most important - because this is a very defining moment in education in our Province - that we have to make sure that the resources are out there, especially the human resources. They must be out there to make sure that this quality education is not only maintained but indeed increased.

Again, I am asking the minister to respond, to indicate to me why she still remains unconvinced that the programming will suffer if she continues in her plan to cut 182 teachers from the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a few minutes to respond to the question raised and make a couple of points for the record. It is unfortunate that the Opposition has chosen in such a blatant way to play politics with an issue as serious as the school system and program offerings, and particularly a member who was a teacher just a few short months ago. How quickly they change and turn into politicians who give all politicians a bad name by going out and using students to their advantage, because they think there is some politics in it. It is incredible, Mr. Speaker, absolutely incredible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: He will stand here today and suggest in a question that the people he has been meeting with are students, parents, and members of the general public who are concerned. Guess who made the presentations that showed up on television, Mr. Speaker? In Port aux Basques, the principal of the school -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely. I met with the man many times myself, when I was the Minister of Education - a very dedicated educator has done some good work and has actually won some awards.

Mr. Speaker, this time he, with the coaxing of members opposite, decided he would put first his role as the president of the PC Party for Port aux Basques, and the campaign manager for the PC district in Port aux Basques, and would come out to a meeting and make a presentation talking about the history of what happened in the Port aux Basques area over the last five or six years when it had nothing to do with reform. Because he made the point again: Is this the reform they voted for? There was no reform to do in Port aux Basques. They did not have four systems operating. They always had only one. Reform is a different issue than dealing with a system in serious decline because there are fewer students.

The question that really should be asked is this: Would the member opposite or anybody else, would any parent in Newfoundland and Labrador, would any adult in Newfoundland and Labrador, suggest that we need the same number of teachers to teach 93,500 students - which is what will go through the doors next September - as we used to have to teach 170,000 students thirty years ago? I would bet that everybody here and everybody in Newfoundland would say: No, you can't need that many. You can't need the same number of teachers as you did when you had almost twice as many students. It must make some kind of sense to have fewer teachers.

I am sure that the hon. member would get up and say that. That if you had 170,000 students and a certain number of teachers, and if the number of students decreased by 76,000, that you obviously do not need the same number of teachers. He would admit that. The Member for Bonavista South would admit that. The Member for St. John's West would even admit that, but guess what? Next year in the classrooms of Newfoundland and Labrador, guess what? There are going to be more teachers for 93,500 students than there were when we had 170,000 students. They are out there trying to rile people up and suggest that for some reason we cannot deliver a quality education, and it makes no sense whatsoever because they want to play some politics with it.

What happened in Stephenville? They dragged out a very concerned parent all right, the past president of the Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, like myself, who when he was in that position, and because he is still teaching, his job is to try to protect the jobs of teachers. First and foremost it is a union, and the union president's job is to try to protect the jobs of their members or they should be fired. They should be turfed out if they do not try to do the job. I am sure the hon. member who was a teacher a couple of short months ago would have been absolutely disgusted if his president did not stand and try to protect every teaching job in the system. They are doing a good job of it. Here they get suckered in to come in here and try to describe that as concerned parents distraught over what is going to happen to the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is hard to believe.

Guess who the concerned parents were in Corner Brook that came out to meet with the very concerned and dedicated member? Because the person on television even said: He is very attentive, I am sure he is taking our concerns seriously.

It was a person who just ran for the position of the vice-president of the teachers' union a week or so ago at their convention. He did not get the job, Mr. Speaker, but he is still on the provincial executive. He came out and made a presentation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - to go along with the charade of the members opposite about how terrible it is going to be. We have more teachers in the system than when we had 170,000 students, and they are trying to suggest that the system is about to collapse. It is absolute poppycock!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: He knows it and he should be ashamed of himself. I'm sure he will never get a job back teaching again. They will not take him back there.


 

May 13, 1999                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLIV  No. 23A


[Continuation of Sitting]

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am so tempted to comment on the words spoken by the former Minister of Education, who should know better. Talk about a dog and pony show. When I have a chance to say a few words on the Estimates, I will refer to the words of the Minister of Mines and Energy here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Two days ago - Tuesday - in this House of Assembly I asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs a question concerning Central Mortgage Housing Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation combining to form an agreement in April of 1997 to administer them and manage the social housing program in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

At that time, I asked him what impact this would have on the rates for the social housing clients of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Also, I made a referral to the $6.6 million that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing ignored, money that needed to be spent on the upgrading of the units. I referred to the 4000 units that were not inspected by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs why they were not inspected. I also referred to the $26.9 million deficiency that the Auditor General pointed out in this agreement.

I also asked why there was not a proper analysis study done of both options - the status quo and the new agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He is awfully happy about something.

I asked those questions to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and he stood in this place and said they would have no impact upon the rates that would be charged.

In the Estimates Committee meeting on Municipal Affairs and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I asked and spoke to the minister regarding some of these points. It was clear that the minister said in the short term it would have no impact but in the long term it will, and the rates will increase for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing clients.

The Minister of Fisheries can shake his head all he wants. We have seen it already. I responded to a letter today from a mayor in Norris Point who is wondering why the rates are going up there from $440 to $480.

That is reality. Those are the facts. That is happening. In the senior citizens' complex in Torbay - a residence of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - we saw the rates go up there last year. Only last year the rates went up for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is it. It went up from $440 to $480, and includes heat and light.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you mean, what are they? I just told you. Are you listening?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Some are and some are not.

Again it was a percentage of income, I say to the Minister of Tourism, but the percentage went up. That is why it went up, because of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing selling off their properties and not having revenues coming in any more to offset the social housing rates they were charging people.

They sold their subdivisions, their private property subdivisions that they were selling to individuals for $40,000 or $50,000 a lot. That revenue is not coming in any more. They sold off the apartment buildings in Churchill Square. They sold off Elizabeth Towers down there, by the way, for a lot less than what it was appraised at.

The minister can stand in his place and say that it will not have any impact but the reality of the situation is that it is having an impact. The minister should address this.

We on this side of the House will continue to ask questions, to try and pressure government to reduce the rates for our seniors in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was at a senior citizens' get-together just Monday night past in Pouch Cove.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: In Pouch Cove, the seniors have paid their dues in this Province!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I sat in the House the other day when the hon. member asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that question. I listened intently. I was totally satisfied with the answer he gave. If the hon. member paid more attention, he would not be taking up the House's time this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bellevue is on his feet. I would certainly give leave if he wants to say a few words.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get back again on an issue that was brought up earlier in the day. I want to find out where some people stand in terms of (inaudible).

We are on the Estimates of the Budget, I hazard to guess, in that we are talking about spending $3.6 million expenditure on road construction. I would estimate that is covered somewhere in the Budget.

I would assume that the divided highway through Whitbourne, the road through Whitbourne, is part of the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to get up on a point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, carry on.

MR. BARRETT: When I got up earlier, I did not have the statement readily available that was circulated in the Whitbourne-Trinity South area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Control yourself (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I will control myself. I want to set the record straight. I am going to read into the record -

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the truth be known.

MR. BARRETT: - the truth: In response to the misleading and sometimes irresponsible statements that have been circulating in the area regarding a safe highway through Whitbourne, we, the business owners, operators and their employees, feel it necessary to inform their customers and the general public our position on this matter.

It has been proven beyond any doubt that to bypass us with a divided highway would close us down, put 120 people out of work, and take millions of dollars out of the local economy.

As a matter of fact, for the benefit of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, if the three businesses on the Trans-Canada close down, the revenue to the Town of Whitbourne in terms of property tax will be roughly about $40,000 a year, which means that you will have to close the doors of Whitbourne.

Now the previous Member for Whitbourne spent six years trying to build up the Town of Whitbourne and trying to make it a viable town by putting a youth centre there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Correctional facility.

MR. BARRETT: - correctional facility there, senior citizen apartments, a railway station and all these things, making improvements to Whitbourne, and they elected a person on February 9, 1999 who wants to close the doors of Whitbourne.

I would hate to see all the work that I did over the six years when I was the member, being put down the drain because somebody is acting irresponsible and travelling around the Province in a show, getting all kinds of misinformation, which he did on the divided highway. The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's circulated the petition.

We have been lobbying for years in conjunction with the Town of Whitbourne and our elected officials to close the dangerous intersection at Route 80 and Route 81. After all, we live, raise our families and work here, and we know how important safety is to all of us. Government has finally come up with a plan that will close the intersection at Route 80 and Route 81. To do this they will put an overpass just east of Monty's restaurant, upgrade the balance of the road with extra lanes and provide safe, easy access to our facilities.

We have been assured by transportation officials that this plan has been designed to add a four-lane highway to the plan if traffic conditions deem it necessary in the future. In other words, what the Department of Works, Services and Transportation have done is, they have designed the highway through Whitbourne so that if in the future traffic deems it necessary, it can be divided and be a four-lane highway and it will not add any extra cost. The facilities that have been put there now can be used if the highway is divided, when we get all of that influx of traffic that the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: After we bury (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Stop your foolishness.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop your foolishness.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Although Mr. Hillier has stated in The Telegram that the government is spending $3.6 million to eliminate one left lane turn at the intersection, this statement is false. The statement is false. That is what I was talking about when those petitions were circulated. That is the kind of information that was circulated to people, which is false. They signed their name to a document that was misleading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go out and ask them.

MR. BARRETT: I have asked them. They signed their name to a document that was misleading to the general public. You come in here and present petitions and say you are representing the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am.

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The government is eliminating the whole existing intersection and is putting an overpass with on and off ramps which will be accessible near the Department of Highways Depot. The overpass and the ramps will ensure safety for traffic on Route 80 and Route 81 as well as a safe access on and off the highway for everyone, including the school buses. Those are the facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: According to you.

MR. BARRETT: You can walk over to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and see the plans for the highway. I fought for eight to ten years to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Those plans (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I couldn't care which plans they presented. The people in the area wanted me to represent them, express their point of view, and that is what I did. This government changed its mind on dividing the highway. This government didn't decide to divide the highway to the Argentia Access Road. It was the Peckford administration that decided to divide the highway, and for the last ten years I have been fighting against it.

One hundred and twenty jobs will be saved, millions of dollars to the local economy, and $30,000 to $40,000 in property taxes to the Town of Whitbourne. The Town of Whitbourne will survive. Whitbourne is not in my district, and I have to stand here today and defend the people of Whitbourne and stand up for the town council. The Town Council of Whitbourne is 100 per cent behind this plan. The Town of Whitbourne is 100 per cent behind this plan. The biggest lobby out there was the Town of Whitbourne. The council in Whitbourne did not want the highway divided.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the council is behind it. There were motions of council passed that they did not want to divide the highway. I led delegations of the Town of Whitbourne in many, many meetings with Works, Service and Transportation to change this particular plan.

I want the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne to stand up now and defend his district, and talk about his district.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bellevue was on his feet talking about the intersection at Whitbourne on the Trans-Canada Highway. I was the former critic for Works, Services and Transportation. I made a trip over to Works, Services and Transportation to look at the plans. I know that what is being proposed today is not what was proposed in the first three options that were put forward to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I also know that what is being proposed today is not as safe as what was proposed the first time, because if it was, the first one would not have been proposed in the first place.

Also, he talked about the intersection out there. We spent $3 million. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has stood in this place and said that that intersection - in the future, as time goes by, there will be more money. What is being proposed today and what is being constructed today will be changed in the near future. Now that is what came out of his mouth. Why are they wasting money today on (inaudible)?

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: To set the record straight, the section of the highway now will cost $3.6 million. One of the three proposals that the hon. member was talking about was talking about a $12 million expense to divide the highway through Whitbourne. We are saving $9 million that we can spend on other highways in this Province. Any time that the government can save $9 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Nine million dollars will be saved by not dividing the highway through Whitbourne, which means that we can pave all the other roads that the Member for Bonavista South is talking about that he needs paving. You want to waste another $9 million to divide the highway, a useless exercise, and we will not be able to do Amherst Cove, we will not be able to do the other roads. We are saving $9 million. I want to set the record straight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Or to that point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have never stood here and echoed my thoughts one way or the other about the intersection, but I say to the member -

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the member rising on a new point of order?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, to speak to this point of order.

CHAIR: The Chair has already ruled there was no point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Then a new point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Very quickly, I say to the member that the money that is allotted for the Trans-Canada is completely different money. It is Roads for Rail. It can only be spent on the Trans-Canada Highway and identified trunk roads. It cannot be spent on the route that I am referring to here every day. Just a point of clarification.

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Further to that, if you want to talk about getting your facts straight, and you said we were going to save $9 million or whatever the case may be, you should have qualified that by saying: at this point in time. Because the minister has already said that the money is going to have to be spent on that road in the future anyway. Why now are they wasting obviously a certain portion of this money that is being spent now, this $3.6 million? It is going to be changed down the road. Why not do it right the first time round? That is all we are saying. That is not too hard to comprehend, I do not think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want me to get up again?

MR. J. BYRNE: You can do what you want. That is up to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I think I have the floor.

The Minister of Mines and Energy was on his feet a few minutes ago talking about education reform. I made a few notes of what he was talking about. He talked about the school system reform and: They are playing politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, he talked about playing politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments regarding the Member for Bellevue's comments. Certainly, he is trying to get the record straight. I would just like to emphasize that we are all trying to get the record straight. I attended a meeting out in -

MR. BARRETT: The difference between you and I is I know what I'm talking about.

MR. MANNING: The difference between you and I is that I'm not for sale, Mr. Chairman.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's just said that the hon. Member for Bellevue was for sale. That is an unparliamentary comment. I would ask him to withdraw it immediately. This member is not for sale.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, I am sure you realize that the remark is unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw it.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I said exactly what the member said, I'm not for sale. Exactly what he just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled that the remark was out of order. The Chair understood that there was a clear insinuation that the hon. member was for sale. I ask the member to withdraw that remark.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chair, this member has no problem withdrawing the remark if I upset the member opposite in any way, shape or form.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled the remark was unparliamentary. I ask the hon. member to please withdraw the remark.

MR. MANNING: I just did, Mr. Chairman, withdraw the remark.

CHAIR: Without condition.

MR. MANNING: Yes, without condition. Whatever suits the fancy of the hon. member opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) behave from now on.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT: I want to further clarify the record, in terms of the comment. I want to make sure it is clarified in terms of the member for sale. In a couple of months' time it will be published by the Chief Electoral Office, donations to a campaign, and it will show that there were no donations from any of the businesses in that area towards my campaign. I can assure you that there were donations to the other political party but there were no donations to my campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty following the debate. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bellevue was up a few moments ago on a point of order with respect to a comment that was supposed to have been insinuated by a member on this side of the House. The member on this side of the House stood up and clearly withdrew the comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: He did. Then the Member for Bellevue got on his feet again on that same basic point of order to make a political statement, really, in the House of Assembly. I think he is the one that should be withdrawing that comment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled on this matter, and I must admonish all hon. members. Everybody in the House is quite aware of the rules as they pertain to remarks that might reflect in any way in a negative fashion on the character of any of the hon. members of this House.

It was fairly clear that the comments by the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's were unparliamentary. The Chair has ruled as such. The hon. member, with some prodding, has withdrawn. I think we have heard enough on this issue. I think the matter has been put to rest.

The Chair now recognizes the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will be glad when the food arrives, so that we can get some order restored to the House.

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

MR. MANNING: I am trying, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Mines and Energy seems to have some concerns with this side of the House. All I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy is that with friends like the Minister of Mines and Energy, who would want enemies?

I would just like to say, in speaking to the concerns raised by the Member for Bellevue, we all have differences of opinion, and we all may believe that we have the facts, and we all may believe we have all the answers. I was asked to stand and present a petition. I've been asked by several people throughout my own district and through other districts to stand and present a petition, to raise a concern that these people have after some people have paid the ultimate price, I say to the Member from Bellevue. It may be a joking matter to some people but it is not a joking matter to me.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is implying that the hon. Member for Bellevue said that accidents had occurred on that highway, and it was a joking matter. It is no joking matter to me.

I can assure you that I spent many years trying to get that intersection made safe. I pleaded with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to put a traffic light there. I can assure you that as you proceed along the Trans-Canada I have more concerns right now - after I improved the situation in Whitbourne; what is happening there in terms of the road, it will be a safe intersection - with the Long Harbour-Chapel Arm intersection, which is one of the most dangerous intersections, and I have been fighting for an overpass there.

I am also trying to improve the Come By Chance-Sunnyside intersection. The Tory government, for political reasons, took the overpass from Come By Chance-Sunnyside, divided the highway, and then they tried to save Glen Greening's neck by taking it to Glovertown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Let's get some normality back to this discussion here today.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order?

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

CHAIR: Then I ask the hon. member to take his seat while the Chair rules on the point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order. Sure, there's no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to please take his seat.

There is a point of order that has been raised. The Chair would like to point out I think that the Member for Bellevue is taking advantage of the opportunity to clarify a situation of which he has some concern about. There is no point of order. The Chair did not interpret from the hon. member's remarks that there was in any way any disparagement against the hon. member's activities.

There is no point of order. The Chair will now, again, recognize the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that safety is the number one concern of us all. I guess that is what on the people's minds who have passed me these petitions. That is what is on the people's minds who have asked me to present these petitions to the House. Safety is the number one concern of us all. It is a national code of safety, the RAD 100, and a divided highway is the safest way of all. I think that is well known right across the country, not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what comes from the petitions. I have other petitions that I will be coming forward to the House with as they come forward to me.

There are many issues and concerns that face this Province today. Not only in the area of Whitbourne but indeed right across the Province, we see what the divided highway has done when you leave St. John's and travel towards the Whitbourne area. There is a sense of safety when you travel along on a divided highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) divided highway (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Bellevue that definitely is not a fair statement to make, Mr. Chairman. As we travel along the divided highway, certainly in my own case, there is a sense of safety. This is what the people who are bringing forward these petitions and raising these concerns have.

I ask the Member for Bellevue, if he is so sure that there are so many people out there in support of this, why doesn't he call a public meeting to discuss this issue with the people in that area?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) public meeting (inaudible)? Tell us where you stand.

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

MR. MANNING: It is his district.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's said: Why doesn't the Member for Bellevue call a public meeting? There have been hundreds of public meetings about the divided highway in Whitbourne. I attended one last fall in Blaketown that was organized. We heard the concerns of the people in the area and we took their concerns. As a matter of fact, they had input in terms of what the present design of the highway is going to be. I can't sit and listen to the hon. member saying we did not consult with the public out there. Ten years of consultation is not enough.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Now, let's get back to some normality, as I said a few -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: There is no point of order, boy. Sit down.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Member for Bellevue rising on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order.

I did not hear the Chair ruling on the point of order and we went back to the other side of the House. I understand that the Member for -

CHAIR: The Chair ruled there was no point of order.

MR. BARRETT: - Placentia & St. Mary's rose. I thought he was speaking to the point of order. I was going to rise and speak in the debate which normally comes across to this side of the House before we go over to the other side. Will you give me leave to speak?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

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

I would normally give leave to a member on the other side of the House, but the Member for Bellevue has been up and down like a yo-yo on points of orders. That is what started this whole debate on points of orders this past fifteen or twenty minutes. We got nowhere with it anyway.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not tell me yo-yo is unparliamentary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, how desperate are they on that side of the House for a bit of attention.

We are on the Estimates for the Executive Council. We have some latitude here. The budget for the Department of Education is some 30 per cent out of our overall Budget. That is what I have been told. The Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Education, has been on his feet this afternoon and he has been making comments in this House of Assembly. He said that we are playing politics with the school system reform that has been going on the Province. If the government would do what we are doing, or if they had done what we are doing, or (inaudible) done in the past, the education system would not be in the mess it is in today. We would not see students on the streets.

The Minister of Education will not listen to what she had asked for. She had asked this side of the House to bring back examples. The Minister of Mines and Energy is on his feet today. I thought that we lived in a democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) education you were talking about (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: You will find out now in a minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if we are living in a democracy or not. The Minister of Education is questioning the rights of an individual in this Province to go to a public meeting and to make a presentation.

AN HON. MEMBER: She never questioned (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He did. Not the Minister of Education, but the Minister of Mines and Energy indirectly questioned it, he definitely did so, if you had been paying attention. He did so. He was basically saying that we basically coached this individual to come to a meeting to make a presentation. That is not so. That is the whole problem with the mentality of the administration, this government, with respect to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them how many Liberals were at the meeting.

MR. J. BYRNE: - rights of the people in this Province. I'm getting to that, I say to the member.

Also, at the meeting we invite anybody to come up. We have teachers, principals, civil servants, community leaders, people who fought with the boards attending these meetings and making presentations. All we are doing is what the government should be doing and basically what the Minister of Education asked us to do.

He talks about the same number of teachers. There is more teachers in the system than there were years ago. With respect to that, there is a question I have to ask, Mr. Chairman. Why are there now schools in this Province closing down? There will be no music classes next year. We have classes which were two classes this year doubling up to one class next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it is happening in this Province. The group on the other side, the minister, is saying that we are out there giving false information. This information is coming from the applicable boards to the parents, to the people and they are giving it to us, and it is coming around back to the minister. She does not understand that it is indirectly her department and it is what she is responsible for that is feeding the information back to her. She refuses to accept it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: All you have to do, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, is attend one of the meetings. If you have the nerve, you can probably make the meeting tonight. Go to Lewisporte. Go to the meetings yourself and listen to what the people have to say.

I have been listening. I have attended at least a dozen meetings since January of this year in my own district, and the people down there are feeding the same information to me.

French immersion is another one. Here we have a situation where a school in a district that is going to be zoned the French immersion school for that district, and they are not going to supply busing to get the students to the school. Is that what education reform is all about? Is that education improvement?

MR. GRIMES: It has nothing to do with education reform. There has never ever been a bus provided in Newfoundland for French immersion.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the point.

MR. GRIMES: Never.

MR. J. BYRNE: There is supposed to be.

It does not make sense. We have a group, the north zone now, down my way, where there is going to be a school, French immersion for the whole district, the whole zone, and they are not going to supply busing.

The minister just said that there was never busing supplied for French immersion. I am no expert in the education system, I can guarantee you, but I can take the minister at his word. I don't mind stating facts, but I do believe there are areas in this Province that have busing for French immersion.

MR. GRIMES: No, Sir, there was not.

MR. J. BYRNE: It will be on the record that the Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Education, is saying there was never any busing supplied for French immersion in the Province.

MR. GRIMES: Correct.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. I will follow up on that.

Why are certain schools losing the programs?

MR. GRIMES: What programs?

MR. J. BYRNE: The programs they are losing now, that are being cut back.

Also, the Minister of Mines and Energy said that we are out there riling people up. If you call a meeting and 265 people attend the meeting, they come in and make statements and presentations and give you information, how do you consider that riling people up? What we are doing is listening to the people. We are doing what the government should be doing. That is what is going on with the Progressive Conservative Party in Newfoundland and Labrador, what the government should be doing.

I say to the President of Treasury Board, I asked her a few questions some time ago. I refer to page 18, the Economic Renewal Agreement Administration. She has not yet answered the questions, I say to you, Mr. Chairman. When I sit down, I wonder if she would address the questions I asked earlier that she has not responded to yet.

I will continue on now. On page 19, under Protocol, I think that is something we should have a very close look at, because when I went through the Estimates for 1999-2000 and I look back at the Estimates for 1996-1997 when the previous Premier was there, I could not find Protocol under the Cabinet Secretariat. There was Protocol under the Lieutenant-Governor's budget or subhead but there was not any there for the Cabinet Secretariat. In that, I would like to know where it was in the previous Budget, or if this is a new section that was put in there within the past few years.

Also under Protocol, under Salaries, we see that the salaries have gone up from $89,000 to $103,700. We see that Transportation and Communications - this one really caught my eye - last year we had spent $30,000 and now it is gone up to $170,000. That is almost six times what was actually spent last year. I notice that in the previous year it was $170,000 also, but what I do not understand is why it would be necessary, if we only spent $30,000 last year, why it would have to go up almost six times.

Supplies is $50,000 and Purchased Services $140,000. Both of those have increased significantly. I would like to know what the services are - Purchased Services - why the increase up by $30,000, and why Supplies would have to be increased by some $30,000 also.

Also under the Minister's Office, under Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, we have Salaries $189,300. Last year it was only $30,000. We know we have a minister, but my question to you is: Does this $189,300 include the minister's salary? Could she tell me how many staff are in the minister's office to date?

With those few questions I will sit down and let the minister have a chance to respond.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will take a break. I will see if the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has a conscience.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, before I get down to answering some of the questions, I want to make a couple of clarifications here.

The Member for Cape St. Francis is making comparisons from Budget Estimates of 1995-1996, 1996-1997. What I have to say to the Member for Cape St. Francis is that you are looking at a different focus here, a different government, a different structure, and it is very difficult to compare; however, I will be able to answer one of your questions related to the Premier's Office.

You mentioned in that estimate, 1995-1996, that the Premier's Office had less salaries, less employees at the time. I would like to draw your attention to that particular subheading 2.1 on page 9 of those Estimates you have. I think that if you look closely you will notice that there were actually seventeen employees and today there are fifteen. The salary cost today is $667,000 as compared to $726,000 at that particular time.

You also made a reference that I said Executive Council has reduced its spending, but in fact I said that Treasury Board has reduced its spending. Treasury Board is only one part of Executive Council.

You also mentioned the Public Service Commission with regard to the policy change in 1996, how the hiring process has now been delegated to the departments. As I said to you yesterday in the Estimates Committee, I told you at that time there was a reason for doing that, and the reason for doing that was that this government in 1996 was faced with a huge deficit, $300 million - a huge deficit - and at that time we brought in what we call program review. You know, the Public Service Commission did not escape program review. As a result, one of the big changes in the Public Service Commission was the change in policy whereby the hiring went back to departments.

There are a lot of positive things from this policy change. The main one is that who would know better in the departments on who to hire and what the hiring requirement would be? ADMs in every department would certainly know when there is a need to hire, what type of individual and what skill level they would need. Apart from that, it was a cost saver.

There were approximately forty-four employees at the Public Service Commission delegated to that task alone, looking after the hiring for all of government. With this new delegation back to the departments, that number has now reduced to twenty-one. Also, it gives departments flexibility whenever there is a need to replace an individual or hire someone new or add somebody. Departments would know better than anyone, and they now have the flexibility to do that.

On top of that we have a guarantee, an audit that is done by the Public Service Commission which audits every single permanent hiring in government throughout the year. They are also responsible for looking after the hiring practice when there are sensitive issues involved.

All in all, that was the reason for the policy change: more flexibility for departments, a cost saver to government overall, and also a guarantee that an audit would be done on each and every hiring. That is the explanation for that.

Now I will get into the other questions you have asked under Executive Council. I think the first one was under Cabinet Secretariat and was related to the Social Policy Analysis. I believe if you look at that cost what you will see is that this government has paid considerable attention to social policy. There have been a number of significant changes made in that area.

What I would like to draw the member's attention to is the bottom line figure for that vote. It was originally budgeted at $174,000, but what I have to tell you, Member for Cape St. Francis, there was only $121,900 actually spent. So, are you criticizing us for saving money? I hope not, because it is the incentive of this government to save money. We have allowed the same budget again for the upcoming year but that is not to say we are going to spend it.

Under Salaries, that is for two permanent and one temporary position. It also reflects the non-reoccurrence of the twenty-seventh payroll period.

The next one you had a question on was related to heading 2.2.04. Offshore Fund - Administration. I would like to tell the member opposite that you have to take into consideration that the administration of this office is joint between the federal and provincial governments and is related to the offshore. I am sure the member opposite would realize and appreciate that this government is strongly focused in economic development offshore.

The salaries mentioned there, the funding is provided through the Departments of Industry, Trade and Technology, Human Resources and Employment, and Education, and is jointly funded by the federal and provincial governments. Salaries reflect the two contractual positions and also twenty-six pay periods. You will notice that it was budgeted for $79,000 but in actual fact there was only $74,000 paid out.

The next one under Cabinet Secretariat is 2.2.05., which is Economic Renewal Agreement Administration. You make reference there to an amount of $10,000; it was budgeted for $10,000 and went to $20,000. Everyone knows, and I am sure you will appreciate it, that Transportation and Communications is related to travel expenses, telephone, fax machine and cellular. However, if you look at the bottom line figure it is $95,200 and this year coming up we have estimated that it will be down to $79,300.

If you are looking at the next one, 2.2.06., which is the Advisory Council on Economic and Social Policy, the first reference you made was 03., which is Transportation and Communications. I believe the member opposite would know the value of that particular committee. They provide independent advice to government on major economic and social issues, which is so valuable. There was a great deal of work done in that area last year and it relates to the same thing, which is travel related expenses.

Under the heading of Purchased Services, this figure was budgeted for $20,000 but it was actually only $5,000. It relates to meeting room rentals and all expenses associated with the group. What I have to point out the member is, look at the bottom line. It was budgeted for $245,000 when in actual fact only $174,000 was spent. We are still budgeting this year $241,000 but, who knows? It may not even reach that. We have been frugal in our spending.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

The minister has leave to finish up.

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

The next heading is Protocol, 2.2.07., Salaries. You said that there was nothing under Protocol for 1996-1997. I do not have that information available right now. Let Hansard show that and we will provide you with that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: With regard to Salaries, Protocol, under 2.2.07., this activity is responsible for the coordination of major government sponsored events such as Soiree '99, which is coming up and we are already into, celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Newfoundland and Labrador joining Canada, Year 2000 Celebration, and arrangement of dignitaries and itineraries.

The Salaries line under 01. relates to two permanent positions. Last year there was $102,000 budgeted and only 89,000 of that amount was used.

The next one, Transportation and Communications, was budgeted for $170,000 and only $30,000 was used, I would like to tell the hon. member opposite.

The next one, under Supplies, was budgeted for $50,000 and only $20,000 was used.

You asked what was purchased under Supplies. Well, I will tell you what was purchased under Supplies. It would have been sort of routine office supplies, gifts and souvenirs. Also, included is funding for the purchase of the Newfoundland and Labrador Bravery Award medals, Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer medals, and the Newfoundland Voluntary Service medal.

Now we are right down now to page 19 under Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)?

MS THISTLE: Sure.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think we have agreed that the House will resume at 7:00 p.m.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am so glad we had this break tonight, so I could watch the news. There was an old saying. I remember my father saying this about people who were trying to get back at other people - revenge: Tit-for-tat, butter for fat, you kill my dog, I will kill your cat.

The Member for Humber East sandbagging the Premier... The Premier sandbagged the Member for Humber East before, but I could not believe what I was hearing tonight. I could not believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: He out there saying, in Humber East, at a meeting today on what we have been trying to preach to the Minister of Education, and she was saying: You are hearing information that is not factual, all this kind of information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education needs a confidence boost let me tell you that, after what I saw tonight on television. I will get into that in a few minutes. The Member for Humber East was saying on television for all the world to see that the Opposition was right all along. He actually made a statement that the cuts in education reform out there are cutting into programming. Right out of the horse's mouth. Talk about a dog and pony show? That is right out of the horse's mouth over there, that what is going on is cutting into programs in the Province.

The Minister of Education, in a debate on CBC this evening, was blaming the teachers, blaming the principals, blaming the school boards, blaming everybody for the woes in education reform today, except the Department of Education. I have to ask the Minister of Education: Does she now believe members on her own side of the House when they say that programs are being cut in the Province and that parents have been told by the boards that x number of teachers are being cut and that programs will be lost? Now we are hearing it from her own side of the House, so maybe now it will sink in.

Another thing I noticed in that debate this evening on CBC was the minister and - what is that other gentleman's name, the President of the NLTA?

AN HON. MEMBER: Brendan Doyle.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Doyle was trying to get a word in edge-wise but the minister kept going, afraid -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Afraid that the President of the NLTA would make legitimate points, which he did, by the way. He -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) won't vote for you the next time!

MR. J. BYRNE: I will sit down, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: He was making some legitimate points and talking about the formula, and the minister was trying to say that there were 260-odd teaching positions staying. The President of the NLTA corrected the Minister of Education in saying that the parents are not buying into this formula anymore. They understand what is going on in the Province and they understand in rural Newfoundland what is going on. They know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is about education reform. I have to say, again, that with regards to the members on the other side of the House, now we are starting to see a very small phasing of them accepting our policies. The Member for Humber East now believes what we are saying. The Minister of Finance, as I said earlier, believing and now talking about tax reductions. That is what we talked about in the election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You just put another point in my mind. Thank you, I say to the Government House Leader.

They talked about eighteen positions being lost in the District of Humber East because of the cuts. What did he say? He said: Not in my district, it is not going to happen. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the same mentality as the Minister of Fisheries.

Back to the point. The Minister of Finance is now believing in our policies. The Premier was on the television tonight talking about our policies. We have the Minister of Fisheries listening to the Member for Bonavista South, now believing in our policies. We have the Member for Humber East talking about our policies and saying that we were right. The only one we have to convince yet is the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is still standing firm on what -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: For those who want (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, just to go on record, I was just complimenting the Minister of Health. Listen to what she said. She said that there are drugs available for those types of delusions. So in actual fact, the Minister of Health is now starting to believe in our policies. So we will see her now standing in her place maybe tomorrow -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't need it, I can guarantee you that. Standing in her place tomorrow agreeing with the statements, questions and speeches that have been put forward in this House of Assembly from the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Ferryland, when he was questioning her over the past year or so, Mr. Chairman. Now she is going to start to agree with what we are saying. It is long overdue. As a matter of fact, we were talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point or what? What is your (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, here is the point. Mr. Chairman, talking about health now, I have been speaking in the past two days - listen to this now, you might learn something, I say to the members opposite - speaking to two physicians in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the past few days. What they said was this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen now, listen, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Because I was holding a pencil, I say to the Government House Leader. Figure it out.

Mr. Chairman, I am on a very serious topic here, but the members on the other side of the House do not want to listen to reality and a serious debate here. There is something wrong.

Two doctors told me in the past two days that what is going on in health care today is shameful. What the problem is is this. With respect to health reform in the Province, the government took on too much and tried to accomplish too much too fast. The reorganization of health care in the Province is not working. The minister knows it, the health care boards know it, but there is no one willing to admit they have made some mistakes and no one willing to take the responsibility for it. The government tried to do too much and did not put the money into health care that needed to be put in to do what they set out to do.

I say to the Minister of Health that if she is going to continue on the road she is on, if she is still going to continue to bury her head in the sand like an ostrich and not address the concerns of what is going on in health care in this Province today, maybe she should look at having someone else put in her place and go to the Premier and say: Mr. Premier, please take me out of this portfolio.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm saying the Minster of Health should go to the Premier and ask to be taken out of the portfolio. Then -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Health that is twice she has said to me, since I stood here, that she has drugs.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave denied.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back on the topic that we were on this afternoon for a while, because there seem to be some issues that have not been cleared up. We need to get some more information out to the public so the people can make a wise decision on a major government policy.

This afternoon there were a few hon. members from the other side looking at - and I indicated that the road through Whitbourne would cost $3.6 million. If we looked at the plans that were originally planned to divide the highway through Whitbourne, we were talking about two major overpass structures plus dividing the highway, which would have cost $12.9 million. The revised plans for the divided highway in Whitbourne will be a cost of $3.6 million, which is a saving of $9 million on the divided highway through Whitbourne.

The hon. Member for Bonavista South indicated that you could not use the money from the Roads for Rail Agreement to do the roads in Newmans Cove and all these other areas. That is true, but I can tell you one thing, that that money can be used to add other improvements to the highway system in Newfoundland. If we do not take that $9 million to provide an overpass at the Long Harbour-Chapel Arm intersection, the Come By Chance-Sunnyside intersection - which I indicated before was supposed to be divided around fifteen years ago. They divided the highway there. There is a stretch of divided highway that goes nowhere. There was supposed to be an overpass put there but just before a provincial election it was diverted from Come By Chance-Sunnyside to Glovertown to save Glen Greening in an election.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne say about all this?

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is too chicken to talk about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is `Mr. Neutral.'

MR. BARRETT: We also need an overpass in Goobies, which is a dangerous intersection. We also need an overpass at the Arnold's Cove refinery road. You are talking about major accidents. It is one of the biggest industrial areas in Newfoundland, the Bull Arm construction site, the Whiffen Head construction site, the oil refinery and National Sea Products. It is the biggest industrial area in Newfoundland. We have a dangerous intersection in Arnold's Cove that needs an overpass. If we waste that $9 million we will not provide an overpass at the Lewisporte intersection, which is another dangerous intersection in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. BARRETT: Lewisporte.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lewisporte?

MR. BARRETT: A dangerous intersection, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, there is a dangerous intersection in Lewisporte. Based on the information, they say there is a dangerous intersection in Lewisporte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) up there.

MR. BARRETT: They want to put it there. We will see if the overpass will go in Lewisporte or if it will go in Come By Chance-Sunnyside. It is the industrial heartland of Newfoundland on the Isthmus of Avalon. We need great improvements in the road system on the Trans-Canada. The road from Bellevue to Arnold's Cove has deteriorated. It is in a dangerous state of disrepair. We need that $9 million to improve the Trans-Canada. If you want to look between Badger and the Baie Verte Junction, that is a dangerous part of the Trans-Canada Highway. We could take that $9 million that would have been wasted in Whitbourne and improve the Trans-Canada Highway system.

The hon. members talked about public consultation. This issue has been on the go for ten years. There have been hundreds of meetings and consultations on the divided highway through Whitbourne. The two things we put out to people were that we wanted a safe highway that people could travel on without endangering their lives, and the other one was to provide a highway that could keep the businesses open.

At one time we even proposed that we would use the businesses as an island. The hon. Member for Bonavista South and myself travelled to areas in the United States. We stopped and looked at some of those islands on Interstate 95, where the service centres were in the centre of the median of the highways, and the traffic would turn off and get their gasoline, coffee or meals and continue on again.

The Member for Bonavista South and I spent many hours on government business observing the highway system in the United States of America. We came back and proposed the median. The hon. member will agree that we were foremost in looking at the businesses of this Province when it came to the divided highways, and how we were going to save the businesses.

We saw the hon. Member for Lewisporte the other day get up with crocodile tears coming down over his face -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. BARRETT: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte, the tears were rolling down over his cheeks. He said we were destroying rural Newfoundland, we are devastating rural Newfoundland, we are wiping out rural Newfoundland. What are we going to do with rural Newfoundland? This government has done nothing for rural Newfoundland. This is what he was saying. He was preaching in his usual style, with his arms going. He reminded me when he was the leader up there in the old House, and when he was in the Opposition up there, and in the night sessions would come back with his arms swinging and rocking and rolling. He was back in his old form, talking about the devastation of rural Newfoundland.

The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who was a member of the rural development association was very active in the rural development association of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would say he probably still is. He was the executive assistant to the federal member and was out there fighting for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I can hear him now on the open line programs when he was gearing up for this provincial election, talking about the devastation of rural Newfoundland. Today he gets up and presents a petition that he wants to eliminate 120 jobs out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If you want to talk about rural Newfoundland, you are talking about Whitbourne, Blaketown, Markland, South Dildo. You can't get any more rural.

In my district there are thirty-six communities in Placentia, Fortune Bay and Placentia Bay. It is a very rural part of Newfoundland and Labrador. The highest employment rate of any district in Newfoundland is in the District of Bellevue, and as long as I'm the member I will fight to save those businesses at the intersection in Whitbourne. There are 120 jobs. How many businesses, or how many things are we going to have to do, what kind of government grants are we going to need, to create another 120 jobs that will employ people from the District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne? People from the District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne, in Markland and Whitbourne are employed at those businesses at the intersection there. The people from Blaketown, South Dildo, Old Shop, New Harbour, Greens Harbour in the hon. Speaker's district, the people from Long Harbour, Norman's Cove and Chapel Arm, all those people who work there: 120 jobs will be eliminated if we go along with the policy of the PC Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't mind getting up and flailing off on behalf of the (inaudible) teachers.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you get up there and advocate for the teachers' union and make sure we don't cut any teachers, but I can tell you one thing. If we eliminate the 120 jobs of the businesses there we will have to cut back more teachers. We will have 120 people on the welfare roles, 120 more people that will be coming to government looking for money because they are unemployed. So you are advocating that we do away with those 120 jobs, which means that we will have to lay off more nurses, we will have to lay off more teachers, we will have to get (inaudible) more doctors. The hon. member is up advocating -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Anyway, during the supper break I received calls from people in the Whitbourne area wondering where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stood on this particular issue. They said: We realize that the divided highway through Whitbourne has become a major issue today in the House of Assembly. I received faxes from Whitbourne wondering where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stands on this particular issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is out in Port aux Basques meeting with the PC executive.

MR. BARRETT: He is out in Port aux Basques and travelling all over the Province meeting with teachers, with the PC executive -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: - on teacher cutbacks. Here we are. The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne will not stand in his place and say where he stands on this particular issue. He wants to wipe out 120 jobs out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on the Executive Council and some other concerns, but I think I would be remiss if I did not make a few comments on the news this evening, as we had our supper break and watched the news. I think it is very important.

For the past couple of days we have listened to the Minister of Education say that the ideas and examples that are coming from this side of the House on what is happening out in our education system in the Province are pipe dreams of the people on this side of the House, that they are being dreamt up. Over the past couple of days the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has brought example after example here about what is happening to education here in this Province and the minister says it is a pipe dream. It is being brought up. Then I turn on the news and the sandbagger from Humber East was getting sandbagged in Corner Brook today. I sat down and I sized it up.

I believe, as I look around, the sandbagger is back. I am telling you, the concerns of the people across this Province were given to the Member for Humber East today in Corner Brook. As I've looked over on the other side of the House over the past couple of days, I think it is time for a new committee, I really do.

AN HON. MEMBER: To do what?

MR. MANNING: If you bear with me, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, I want to let you know that we have a new committee on that side of the House. I think it would be right to name that committee. The Member for Bellevue is chair of the committee. The Member for Humber East is a member of that committee, and I think the Member for Topsail also. There is your new committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: To do what?

MR. MANNING: Wait. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy that I know he is waiting with baited anticipation, but I ask him to wait. I think we need a legal side from the Member for Topsail. He is going to take care of the legal side. The sandbagging side is going to be taken care of by the Member for Humber East. The roadrunner is going to be taken care of by the Member for Bellevue. I think we are going to call this committee the `meetloaf' committee, because sometimes they meet but most times they loaf, I say to the minister. I think we should have this committee here. I think we need that committee to (inaudible), Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take a seat.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think that the term "roadrunner" is unparliamentary. I would like for you to check Beauchesne to see if it is unparliamentary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am sure the hon. member recognizes that it is probably questionable as to whether or not it is, but with the fine respect that he has for the hon. Member for Bellevue, I am sure he will graciously withdraw the reference to calling the member a roadrunner.

MR. MANNING: Graciously, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Do you know something, Mr. Chairman? If we remember the t.v. show, he was never caught.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a lot of things you should have been caught for, I understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: All I can say is that only for protection, the Minister of Mines and Energy would have caught (inaudible) a long time ago.

I think it is important we sit and try to discuss the education concern in the Province. Certainly, as we have seen here on the TV this evening, I was very surprised to hear a former member of the party opposite, a former leader of the party opposite, say that Premier was running the Province by the seat of his pants.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: By the seat of his pants, he said, on the panel this evening. A former leader of the party said he was running by the seat of his pants - a former Liberal leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: If you had to run for us you might be in Cabinet today, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

What I am trying to get at -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Member for Harbour Main.

MR. MANNING: What is wrong with the Minister of Mines and Energy? Stay calm, Sir.

I am trying to address the concerns, Mr. Chairman. When you sit down and look at the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to bring forward the concerns of the people of the Province as they relate to education is this Province. The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne and other members of our caucus are out gathering examples, because the Minister of Education in the House last week asked for examples. We have been forwarding her these examples over the past number of days. We have been passing these examples on to her.

The Member for Humber East has examples now. The Member for Humber East has plenty of examples in Corner Brook today that he is going to be passing on, I am sure, to the Minister of Education. These are very legitimate concerns being raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am sure all hon. members are very anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's wants to bring to this debate. The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I know they are waiting with bated breath, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, listen to the gold winner for Aeroplan for this summer, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: What is wrong? Are you deaf?

I am trying to raise some very legitimate concerns that have been raised by the parents, teachers and students of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Member for Humber East.

MR. MANNING: The Member for Humber East is raising those issues also.

There is a major concern across this Provinces as it relates to education reform, and many people in this Province have been exercising their right through demonstrations, through attending rallies. I am sure the Minister of Mines and Energy is debating who shows up to a rally, what political stripe they are, whatever they may feel, but these people have very legitimate concerns about programming in the schools in this Province, very legitimate concerns about the level of education that our children are receiving, very legitimate concerns about the future of education in this Province. That is why these people are raising these issues and concerns.

I am enlightened to see the news this evening and to see that finally someone on that side of the House is starting to see the cuts to programs that is happening with the reform to education just in this Budget alone. I am very pleased to see the Member for Humber East admitting that on CBC news this evening and saying: Yes, there is cutting of programs due to the teacher cuts this year.

I think it is a very legitimate concern and I think the pendulum is swinging, the way that the minister herself admitted on CBC this evening that she is going to be addressing some of these concerns and if there are legitimate concerns they are going to be addressed.

The President of the NLTA, Mr. Doyle, who happened to be on the panel with her this evening, said that if those concerns are there then they will be raised and they will be addressed.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: He says there are going to be a lot more than what the minister is thinking there are going to be. I think it is very important that education become front and centre in this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: I understand; the hon. member is getting caught up in his own rhetoric.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take a few minutes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. member was not on his feet. I have already recognized the hon. member.

MR. FRENCH: I have been recognized, I say to the Government House Leader.

I have some questions which I would like to direct to the President of Treasury Board. Madam President, I would like to go to the Lieutenant-Governor's Establishment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Executive Council, yes.

The first question I have is on page 15, I say to the President of Treasury Board. Madam President, on 01 Salaries, it is $402,400. concerning that, I would like to ask: How much money - or how many employees are there? I understand, if I am right, that the Governor's salary is paid by the federal government and we look after the different salaries. In last year's Budget it was $412,000 and we only spent $372,000 and now it has gone up to $402,400. I would ask the President of Treasury Board when she gets up if she could respond to that.

As well, under 04, Madam President, in 1998-1999 under Purchased Services we budgeted $24,600 and spent $40,000. I would like to know what that is for as well, because this year it seems we have gone back to $24,600 again. I have to question whether all of these expenditures - $478,300 for the Government House - I just have to ask: Are all of these expenditures absolutely necessary or are they not?

As well, for Transportation and Communications, we are spending $16,700. As well, Madam President, under Supplies, we are spending $30,600. Again, I would really like to know what that money is being spent for. Where it is going? What benefits do the people of Newfoundland derive from that? Or are there any benefits for the people of this Province?

It is a question that I have. I would ask the President of Treasury Board, if you do not have the answers you can certainly, within a day or so if you would, supply them to me in writing if you do not have them readily available tonight.

Property, Furnishing and Equipment, $3,500, is not a very large amount but again I wonder what we are planning on buying for Government House.

Madam President, I would like to ask you those questions and ask for your response please.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to answer a question that was raised by the Member for Cape St. Francis which is really related to the Member for Conception Bay South, and that was the item concerning Protocol.

The Member for Cape St. Francis mentioned that Protocol was not listed in the 1996 Estimates. I would like to inform that member that, yes, it is. It is listed under Government House, which is 1.1.03., page 13. The budget at that time in 1996 was $394,000 and $323,000 was used of that budget.

In relation to the Member for Conception Bay South, under heading 1.1.01., Government House, I will be pleased now to answer his questions.

I have to say to you that the role of Government House in this Province is largely ceremonial; however, we need to capitalize, I think, on our Province's rich history and tradition. Government House has been an integral part of that tradition, and this is one of the reasons we maintain that house.

You mentioned Salaries. The Salaries budget line was $412,000, but in actual fact there was only $372,000 of that vote used last year. It covered the cost of thirteen permanent positions, including funding for temporary assistants and overtime. The revised ones are the result of two vacant positions for 1998-1999.

With regard to Transportation and Communications - that would be line 03 - there was a budget of $16,700 and that was constant. That same amount was used for that purpose. That was related to expenses: telephone costs, fax machines, courier and cell phone services. That same amount is indicated for this year's budget as well.

With regard to Supplies, the amount there was budgeted for $24,600 but actually used $40,000. That would be such things as: routine office supplies, personal household supplies, uniforms, linens, cooking utensils, cleaning supplies, greenhouse and garden supplies such as seeds, cuttings, flowers, fertilizers, gasoline for the official limousine and messenger vehicle. We have put back that figure of $24,600 again for this year.

The other one is Property, Furnishings and Equipment, $3,500, which relates to the purchase of office equipment and new and period furniture for the official residence, also household appliances and gardening equipment.

I think what is very important here for the Member for Conception Bay South is the fact that the budget amount, the bottom-line figure, was voted at $488,000 but, in actual fact, only $463,300 of that amount was used. We have been very frugal in keeping within and below budget. Based on those figures, we estimated for this year coming up it would be $478,00.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam President, I do not know if you gave the answer to both. You mentioned 1.1.01.06., Purchased Services, $24,600. Last year it went from $24,600 to $40,000.

I know 1.1.01.04., Supplies, was $30,600, which I do not think you addressed. I would like to know exactly what is in the Supplies. You could probably be a little bit clearer as to why 1.1.01.06. went from $24,600 up to $40,000, an increase of $16,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member opposite regarding 1.1.01.06., I am sorry, I inadvertently skipped over that one but I would like to respond to that.

The budgeted figure was $24,600 and the revised figure ended up to be $40,000. There is a reason for that. The services that were purchased were mainly: photocopier charges, printing, advertising, entertainment, photography, matting and framing of certificates, pictures and portraits, repairs and maintenance of Government House vehicles, gardening equipment, household appliances, refurbished period furniture, restoration of artwork, and the cleaning of draperies and period rugs. The revised figure - the increase in funding was required to cover the cost of commissionaire services.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the President of Treasury Board for her answers and just to say, before I sit down, that it is $478,300. I really do not know if we should be spending that amount of money on Government House. While we should probably have a Lieutenant-Governor, I do not know if we should be providing him with a residence to live in. I feel sometimes towards Government House like I do about the Senate of Canada. The Senate of Canada, to me, is probably one of the biggest wastes of money that our federal government has. If I had a vote in Ottawa tomorrow I would certainly vote to do away with it.

I say to the President of Treasury Board that maybe it is time we had a look at this. Maybe it is time we could use the building for something else, a museum or something of that type, and maybe our costs could be reduced if our governor lived in a house of his own or whatever.

I thank the President of Treasury Board for her answer. I just point out that maybe it is something we should look at somewhere down the road.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, this is in response to the member opposite's question. This question seems to come up every year when we look at the Estimates, the cost of maintaining the Lieutenant-Governor's house. I would have to say to members opposite that we have been steeped in a long British tradition here in the Province. The role of the Lieutenant-Governor is so important in our culture and heritage in this Province. If we were to close Government House we would still have to maintain a residence for the Lieutenant-Governor. Of course, if we turned it into some other facility we would still have to maintain that.

It is an expense that we as taxpayers pay for, but I do not think we could let it fall to rubble if we were to close it altogether. I do not know if we could close down Government House any more than we could close down the Colonial Building. I would have to say to you that I believe it would be irresponsible to make such a move, as Government House and all the trappings that go with Government House are so important to our cultural history.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Just a few more questions to the President of Treasury Board.

On page 20, under Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Executive Support, 2.3.02.01, Salaries, we had $256,900 budgeted, $265,000 spent this past year, and we have $345,200 budgeted for next year, which makes a difference of $80,200. I would like to know why that would be increased by that large amount? Is it one or two positions? What type of position is it, I say to the President of Treasury Board?

Also, under .03, Transportation and Communications, they had budgeted $71,000 and you went to $137,700, which is almost doubled what was actually budgeted. In a time that is supposed to be one of restraint and constraints in the civil service, I say to the President of Treasury Board that seems to be a bit exorbitant.

Under .06, Purchased Services, you had a budget of $27,800 but only spent $15,000. There seems to be something inconsistent here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am relating the one thing to the other, why one would be overspent and the other be underspent. It does not make sense. It does not jive.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not at all, I say to the Government House Leader.

Under the next subhead, which is Social and Fiscal Policy, I find something very peculiar here. I will give the minister time to have a chance to look at it. Under Social and Fiscal Policy, on page 20, under .01, Salaries, you have budgeted $234,800. You only spent $215,000, which is probably a good thing, but the next line, .03, under Transportation and Communications, you had budgeted $29,300 and you spent $55,000, which is $25,700 more than what was budgeted for Transportation and Communications. Yet you spent less on Salaries. That does not make sense. It does not jive, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 20, Social and Fiscal Policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You do not need to know. The minister knows. Anyway, she is following this, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

On page 21, I would say to the minister, under Executive Support, 2.4.01.03, Transportation and Communications, you budgeted $100,000, spent $120,000, and you are back down to $100,000 again for this year. Obviously $20,000 is an abnormality. I would like to know the details of the extra $20,000 and what it was spent on.

Also on page 21, under Aboriginal Affairs, I say to the President of Treasury Board, you had salaries budgeted at $434,700 and actually spent $424,200 and this year you are gone up to $608,000. That is $190,000 over and above what was budgeted last year. I would like to know the details of that salary increase subhead, how may positions are there, and what type of positions they are.

Also, under .03, Transportation and Communications, you spent last year $170,000 and this year it is up to $330,800. Again, that is an increase of $160,000. I'm curious as to why that is there. I would imagine it relates to transportation for the salaries.

Also, under .05, Professional Services, you budgeted last year $120,000, you spent $150,000, and this year it is up to $257,000. Actually, that is a $137,000 increase over what was budgeted last year. I am curious as to why that would be there, I say to the minister.

Just before I sit down I will do the next page also. On page 22, under Labrador Affairs, 2.4.04, again under Salaries, .01 there, you had $42,600 last year. This year $50,000 was spent. What is budgeted for next year is $146,900. That is three times what was spent this past year. To me, it is obviously more employees. Are they contractual? Are they temporary? Are they permanent? What type of positions are they, I say to the minister?

Under .03, Transportation and Communications, you spent $10,000 and it is up to $80,000 this year, eight times what was actually spent the previous year. Under Professional Services and Purchased Services, I would like for the minister to address those two and tell me what the Purchased Services and Professional Services are covered underneath that subhead.

Basically, I suppose, under the Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, you spent last year $1.38 million. This year it is up to $2.16 million, basically $800,000 more. I would just have some explanation. I think that would all come out in your explanations with respect to the questions I have asked.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the Member for Cape St. Francis. In fact, I want to go back a bit because before we broke for our supper period, you asked me a question pertaining to Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. That would be located on page 19, 2.3.01. and that would be salaries for the minister's office. The amount, $30,000, covers just a portion of the year, because as you know, this is a new position. The $189,300 represents three permanent salaries and two contractual positions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, that includes the minister's salary.

The next heading is under 2.3.02. and that would be Executive Support. The question was asked pertaining to Salaries. It was budgeted for $256,900, $265,000 was spent, and we have forecast $345,200. That represents four permanent and one temporary position.

I want to say to you on Purchased Services that it was budgeted for $27,800 and $15,000 was actually spent. We are forecasting $27,800 for this current budget.

I want to say to the member opposite that some of the costs that are associated with Intergovernmental Affairs are basically extra, additional pressures related to whatever issues are driven. Most of the costs within Transportation and Communications and so on were directly attributed to the social union talks of last year.

We move down to 2.3.03, Social and Fiscal Policy, .03, Transportation and Communications. It was budgeted for $29,300 and we actually spent $55,000. Basically it is for the same reason, which was travel related expenses and telephone costs. It was revised again, for 1999, back to $29,300. As I said before, these costs are primarily related to whatever issue is on the table at the time. As you know, that office is very important in meeting with our federal counterparts and so on from here to Ottawa and around the country, whatever issue takes us where.

The next one is Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, 2.4.01. The question, I think, was asked about .03, Transportation and Communications, an increase from $100,000 to $120,000. There is a $20,000 increase for last year but it was related to the expenses involved in the land claims negotiations. If you look at the final figure there, the bottom line, they were budgeted for $389,400 last year and again the same this year, $382,800.

Under subheading 2.4.02, Aboriginal Affairs, Salaries, .01, under this one was listed as $434,700 and actually came in at $424,200, but we are looking at increasing it to $608,000. There is a very good reason for that, I would like to say to the member opposite. Most of that is attributed to the negotiations on the Labrador issues. Of course, everyone knows, and the member opposite knows, that this week we had an historical signing of the agreement in principle. That is the reason for that extra cost coming up for this year.

Under Transportation and Communications, .03, we were actually budgeted for $255,800 but spent $170,000. For this coming year we are extending the budget to $330,800. It is for basically the reasons I have indicated. It is an investment. These extra salaries are an investment in our resources, Voisey's Bay and the Churchill River project.

.05, Professional Services, went from $120,000 to $150,000, and the coming year it will be $257,000. The reason for that is consultation and specialized research on native issues, including land claims, library and archival research, translation services, academic research and interpretation, and increased funding for all the land claim issues.

The next one is under subheading 2.4.04, which is Labrador Affairs. Salaries, .01, went from $42,600 to $50,000 and we are budgeting $146,900. That would be a cost of one permanent and two contractual positions. The increased funding for this activity reflects a merger of activities formerly covered under the Comprehensive Labrador Agreement activity.

.03, Transportation and Communications, was budgeted for $30,000 but we only spent $10,000. We are forecasting $80,000 relative to all the negotiations that are currently underway for the Labrador issues.

.05, Professional Services, was budgeted for $15,000 but we only spent $5,000. We are looking at forecasting $23,000 for the upcoming year. Basically, we are looking at anticipating consultant fees for studies on the issues related to the Labrador Affairs. Purchased Services, .06, is very small. We budgeted for $1,000, spent $1,000, and are indicating $4,000 for this coming year.

Basically, what I would say to the member opposite is that we are placing strong priority on the possibilities of development in Labrador, and these are the costs attributed to that.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: I move that we carry the title (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Carry nothing. I say he can move and carry nothing and I will approve that. I will vote for that.

Anyway, I want to respond to two answers that the President of Treasury Board gave on page 20 with respect to the Executive Support. I asked a question with respect to the salaries, gone from $256,900 up to $345,200, and you said four permanent and one temporary. There is an increase there of some $80,000. I would like to know from the President of Treasury Board: Is that one or two positions that have been hired here for the increase? Is it the temporary or is it contractual? I would like to know if there are new employees hired recently under that subhead.

Also, under Social and Fiscal Policy -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible) now. What subhead was that first one under?

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 20, Executive Support, 2.3.02.01, Salaries. It went from $265,000 up to $345,200, which is $80,000. I would like to know if they are recent hirings, is it the permanent or the temporary position, and what that position is if that $80,000 is for that temporary position.

Under the next subhead on the same page, Social and Fiscal Policy, 2.3.03, I asked you about salaries going from $234,800 down to $215,000; it is going back up to $239,400. That was a decrease, yet under .03, Transportation and Communications, you had an increase of $26,000. It does not correlate, it do not make sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Social and Fiscal Policy, 2.3.03, under salaries. Salaries decreased, yet Transportation and Communications went up by some $26,000. It does not make sense, it does not correlate. I would like to have an explanation of that. I asked that earlier but you really did not address it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would just like the minister to respond to those questions before the Member for Bellevue gets going again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we want to get back to the highway situation again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. BARRETT: In Whitbourne.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is not saying anything about this?

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stands on the burning deck/ wrecked with indecision/ because he cannot make up his mind/ a single lane or a division.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Being a former student, and to make sure I did not plagiarize, I want to say that that was coined by a former great member for St. Mary's at one time, Loyola Hearn. He was a great member. He knew what he stood for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, we would like today to get some indication from him where he stands, whether it is a single lane or a division. The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne realizes that there is a very dangerous intersection between Route 80 and Route 81 that needs to be corrected, and it is going to be corrected. This government is going to spend $3.9 million to put in an intersection and make sure the highway is safe for everybody to travel across. We are not going to divide it to Argentia. I realize it is going to be a great inconvenience to the motoring public because it is going to take thirty seconds longer to get from St. John's to Port aux Basques than it would be if we divided the highway to the Argentia access road. I realize, I apologize. It will be thirty seconds' difference for people travelling from St. John's to Port aux Basques on this highway.

I wonder if he would stop his travels around Newfoundland and Labrador and stop going to Port aux Basques, Corner Brook and all these other places. I guess he is going to be in Grand Falls next week, and he is going to be probably in Clarenville, Marystown and all these other places listening to the complaints of the people. I wonder is if he is prepared to work over the next couple of weeks. There is a dangerous situation happening out in his district and my district that needs to be corrected, if we can ever find him to discuss the real problems that exist out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The one serious problem out in the district, we have it. It is in my district but it has been caused by the town of Whitbourne, and it is a real safety hazard on our highway. It is more dangerous than not dividing the highway to Argentia. I am talking about the Whitbourne dump. The Whitbourne dump is a safety hazard. As a matter of fact, in the last couple of years there have been two or three major accidents caused on the highway because of the smoke from the Whitbourne dump. It is a hazardous situation. The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is travelling all around the Province ignoring his district when he should be out there solving the problems of his district.

The Whitbourne dump is right next to the Trans-Canada, and when the great highway is built it is going to be an eyesore for people travelling down to Trinity South. We are spending millions of dollars to improve our tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador and the dump is going to be exposed, the rats are going to be exposed, and the seagulls are going to be exposed. The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is travelling with the travelling show across the Province meeting with his PC buddies when he should be having meetings wondering what they are going to do with the Whitbourne dump.

I ask the hon. member - and people in the district are anxiously trying to find out - where does he stand? I mean, he is sitting here, he is up in Question Period and he is reading off all kinds of problems that exist in Port aux Basques, Corner Brook, Pasadena and all these places. He should be out trying to clean up the rats in the Whitbourne dump. I am sure that he could spread the poison around in the dump to get rid of the rats rather than be travelling around the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) and dump it on everybody else.

MR. BARRETT: Dump it on everybody else. Here he is -

MR. FRENCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to congratulate the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, because he has done something today in this House that nobody in this House, according to some people who have been around, have been able to do since 1989. They have actually woken up the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it is a great compliment to say that the hon. Member for Bellevue is awake, but I am not like some people walking around in their sleep. The hon. Member for Bellevue is on his feet today because he sees a major difficulty, a major crisis, happening. We are talking about a party in Newfoundland and Labrador, the PC Party, that is up talking about destroying rural Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Empty words.

MR. BARRETT: Empty words. We are talking about members in urban Newfoundland who are talking about the elimination of Spanish courses when we are more concerned about academic math in rural Newfoundland. They want to have more Spanish classes.

He is over in Port aux Basques and Pasadena and all these places listening to the problems of all these communities, when the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile is well representing his district. I can assure you, in our caucus he is speaking on behalf of the people in Port aux Basques. The Member for Humber East is up there speaking for the people of Corner Brook, Pasadena and all these communities. He can say that. You can rest assured that these members are representing their district. I can tell you that the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has an opportunity here today and he will not get up and defend his district. He will not get up and talk about saving three businesses in his district.

We all know what happened in Conception Bay South. In Conception Bay South the hon. member -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. BARRETT: Already? I will be back.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad the chair of the `meetloaf' committee is on his feet once again expressing his views. It is great to see that the committee is very active. Here we have the vice-chair of the committee from Humber East all the way out in Corner Brook today, back in here in the House this evening. It is great to see that the committee is active, and I am sure that over the next few weeks the `meetloaf' committee will be bringing much deliberation to the House of Assembly. We stand here and look forward to it.

I am very pleased the Member for Bellevue has come to his feet in this House and started speaking out on some issues. I was here for three years before and I think he spoke once, wishing Happy Birthday to someone.

I just wanted to get back, if I could, to what we were talking about earlier in relation to education in the Province and the concerns that have been raised. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy that it is very strange what time does. I can remember back a few years ago when the present Minister of Mines and Energy stood out here on the steps of Confederation Building representing the teachers in this Province. Tears rolled down his cheeks about what the government was doing. Crocodile tears, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Her suit is lovely too, I say, Madam Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I say you should be ashamed of yourself, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, out here on the steps of Confederation Building crying crocodile tears to the teachers of this Province. Standing up and condemning the government of the day that was trying to do something for education in this Province. The Minister of Mines and Energy then goes out, stands up, and tears rolled down his eyes out here as he spoke to the teachers. He said: I will stand up for you, I will speak for you and I will make sure we get a fair and equal agreement. Then when he got in to the House of Assembly, what did he do? He took a lesson from the Member for Humber East who wasn't even here at the time and he sandbagged them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: He stood up as leader of the teachers of this Province and then when he got the opportunity to do something he sandbagged them. Then the Minister of Mines and Energy stands in his place and condemns us for bringing up the concerns of education in this Province. I say shame on you, Minister.

Mr. Chairman, there have been many concerns raised in this Province over the week or ten days about education. I was very pleased this evening to watch the news and watch a member from that side of the House join us on this side, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Humber East joined the crowds of people across this Province who are speaking out against program cuts, who are speaking out against teacher cuts, and who are speaking out against what is happening with education in this Province. The Member for Humber East stood in Corner Brook today and said: Yes, I agree with you. I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Vice-Chairperson of the `meetloaf' committee stood in Corner Brook today and spoke out on behave of the people that he represents.

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

MR. MANNING: The legal beagle from Topsail is up, Mr. Chairman, another member of the `meetloaf' committee.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, some time ago the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's referred to what he called the `meetloaf' committee.

MR. TULK: Who is that.

MR. WISEMAN: I think he named myself, as the legal beagle from Topsail, I think the Member for Humber East and I think the Member for Bellevue.

Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit tardy, I suppose, in getting up on a point of order, but I want to thank the hon. member for the compliment actually, and I want to refer to the opinion of our legal friend and colleague across the way, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who said legal beagle was a term that was attached to an individual who was well learned in law.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken no legal training, but I want to thank the member opposite. From here on in I will attach it to my resume, but will not use him for a reference.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) ascertain the point of order, but I thought if he was talking about the legalities he would tell us about the Catholic Women's League of Topsail and what kind of legal advise he has been giving them, as the legal beagle he is.

I don't know if I said, Mr. Chairman, that a legal beagle is one who is learned in law, but I did regard it as a compliment that a man of his education, training and stature would be referred to as a legal beagle. It is obviously a compliment, not something that would be insulting. So I do agree with him on that.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: I would just like to say, Mr. Chair, that if the Member for Topsail takes it as a compliment, I am pleased he does. I am pleased the Member for Topsail takes his appointment today to the `meetloaf' committee as a compliment.

I just want to reiterate what the `meetloaf' committee is, Mr. Chair, to make sure that the Member for Topsail is fully aware of the role that he is playing. The `meetloaf' committee is that: sometimes they meet but most times they loaf. I just wanted to make sure that the Member for Topsail is fully aware that, yes, he is a member of that committee, the Member for Bellevue is the Chairperson and the Member for Humber East is the Vice-Chairperson. I just wanted to make sure that the Member for Topsail is fully aware of his role on the committee.

Now, we don't have all the details or the functions of the committee straightened out just yet, Mr. Chairman, but we are working on that, and I want to consult with the Government House Leader on what role we could have for the `meetloaf' committee.

MR. WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Topsail on a point of order.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible). I take that as a compliment too, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: I am here, Mr. Chairman, once again trying to raise concerns. I say to the Government House Leader, the member has been around the House for quite some time. He stood in his place earlier today and talked about the former leader of the party, the former premier, and how often he visited the office of the former premier.

I was here for three years, from 1993 to 1996, and if the premier of the day could have got the Government House Leader up in the gallery from 1993 to 1996 that is where he would have had him, but he could only get him back as far as the wall. That is as far back as he could get.

I'm sure he played a major role behind the scenes in making sure that the premier of the day then exited so he could come up to the front. I have to say, I am very pleased to be here in the House today, and I will be honest, Mr. Chairman, and have as the Government House Leader the member opposite. When you look back on what we had when I was here in the House before, I am very pleased to have the Member for Bonavista South here as Government House Leader now. I am glad he has graduated from the back seats up to the front. I think there are many lessons that the Member for Humber East and other members could take from the Government House Leader in what it takes to get up to the front row. Because he spent a fair amount of time, much more time than he wanted, in the back row, but now he is up to the front.

I know what it is like to be out of the House and back again. I am very pleased for the Government House Leader to be in the position he is in today -

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave denied.

MR. MANNING: I think it was a good move by the Premier to bring up the Member for Bonavista South and put him up in the front row. I am very pleased.

CHAIR: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. MANNING: I can remember when he was back in the House and he would be looking over, wondering what is going on. He was really out of place and he is more in place in the front row.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Here the sandbagger is back again, the vice-chair of the `meetloaf' committee is back in the House, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Sorry about that, my hearing is bad.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: I would suggest that someone check your hearing aid the next time you rise because the Chair called you to order a couple of times.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: They talk a lot about public consultation and they talk about being good listeners. I stood here for five minutes and the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's didn't hear the Chair say that his time is up. I'm glad that he is not one of the people in that road show going around listening to people because he would never hear what they were saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: There would be no questions at all for Question Period. The boys would never have a question for Question Period because there would be no comments coming back from the road show whatsoever.

I mean, we have this road show which started in Port aux Basques, travelling across the Province from Port aux Basques on that single highway and coming all the way to Whitbourne. Then they hit the divided highway and they zoom back to St. John's with all that information for Question Period.

I can understand why the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's will always be in the back bench. He will never sit in the front bench because he is not a good listener. You have to be a good listener to sit in the front benches and you will never get in the front bench because you have to listen to what people have to say.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Chairman, referring to the Member for Bellevue and his comment about the back benches, that he has kept it warm for the past ten years, even though he got two new suits. He thought he was going to be in the Cabinet one day. I say that the Member for Bellevue is fully aware of what it is like to be in the back benches, and I hope he is comfortable there because he is going to be there for a long time.

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sir, because that is a devastating blow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I will not sleep tonight because my feelings are hurt so tremendously. If you keep that up, I will have crocodile tears like the Member for Lewisporte the other day about rural Newfoundland.

I can assure you that the hon. Member for Bellevue started in that seat right there, moved to that seat right there, and moved to that seat right there. He has always been in the second row, he has never been in the back row, he has never been in the front row. That explains his politics. He is neither a reformist nor a socialist, he is a Liberal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The one thing the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has to remember is that this hon. member has been elected four times to this House of Assembly. I was never defeated and will never be defeated, I can assure you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Oh no. This member will never be defeated. I can tell you one thing. If you want to take the record of all the people who sit in the front benches -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary.

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

I believe that the hon. Member for Bellevue said he has never been defeated. I ask him, if my memory serves me correctly, about the council election in Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I say to the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, yes, the hon. Member for Bellevue was defeated in the council election in Mount Pearl. I am glad I was. It was the best break I ever had politically in my whole life. Do you want to know something? If I had been elected I would have resigned after two months. Because the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, who was the mayor at the time, would have bored me to death. You talk about the Member for Bellevue being asleep? He would have killed me long before!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The best thing that ever happened to me was that I was defeated in the municipal election in Mount Pearl, because the hon. Member for Waterford Valley would have killed me a long time ago with his boredom and his speeches.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I would like to ask the Chair something. The Member for Bellevue referred to a member who is not in Legislature. I would like him to know that is not permitted.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. the Member for Bellevue is well aware of the rules of the House. He did not refer to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley -

AN HON. MEMBER: The fact that he is not here.

MR. BARRETT: The fact that he is not here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: There is no way he would refer to the hon. member as not being here. If the hon. Member for Waterford Valley was here we would all be well aware of it because we would all be asleep and snoring by now. I can assure you, if you want to hear somebody snore, you only have to hear the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Because he has the greatest snore of anybody I have ever known. As a matter of fact, I was in Philadelphia, and he was asleep in Atlantic City, and I heard him snoring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You were sleeping together, (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the hon. Member for Bonavista South and the hon. Member for Bellevue have slept together. Yes, we have slept together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not getting carried away, but I will just explain it. I was driving and he was sleeping.

The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's talked about my defeat in the town council election -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about this fellow from Whitbourne? What about him?

MR. BARRETT: The fellow from Whitbourne? We are going to get to him now. I am just giving him a little break because he is racked with indecision. He does not know where he is going to turn. He is in a dilemma. He is going to have to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: One thing you have to remember, after a person has been elected four times to this House of Assembly, you have to represent the people who elected you.

As I was going to say, before I was so rudely interrupted by hon. members opposite, this hon. member, at any time, will put his record against anybody who sits in the back bench, or anybody who sits in the front bench. When you look at the amount of money and the things that are happening in this district, it does not really matter. Everybody has a role to play in government, and I have an important role. Whether you are sitting up here or sitting there, these people have just as important a role to play.

We act over here as a team. We are not divided on this side of the House. We do not have little divisions over here, little divisions over there. We work as a team in this House. There are no back-stabbers over here, we work together. We do not have the hon. Member for Trinity North or the hon. Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde getting up and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: We do not have situations like we have here today, the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's getting up and trying to eliminate 120 jobs and to close down three businesses in his buddy's district that is next door to him.

I am up here, I am of a different political stripe than the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and I have to stand in my place today and defend the people of Harbour Main-Whitbourne because the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is up trying to eliminate 120 jobs out of the District for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bellevue has been on his feet, and in the past minute to two minutes he has said these words: That the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is trying to eliminate 120 jobs in that area and he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He is trying to impute motives, Mr. Chairman, in this House of Assembly. That is clearly unparliamentary and he should withdraw those remarks.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. MANNING: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: There is no point of order. The Chair has already ruled.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I want the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis to communicate to his hon. colleagues sitting behind him, presenting a petition in here with names on it saying: We want to close down three businesses, we want the divided highway through Whitbourne, that if that is not eliminating 120 jobs I don't know what you are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Oh yes. Based on previous experiences in Holyrood, Corcoran Pond, Grand Falls and other areas across this Province, if you divide the highway through Whitbourne you eliminate 120 jobs. What this petition is saying is the PC Party of Newfoundland - excluding the Member for Bonavista South. I have to say the Member for Bonavista South supports me in this one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the Member for Bonavista South supports me in this. There is one thing I have to say, the hon. Member for Bonavista South - and I have said it many times - will probably always be elected in his district because he stands up for what he believes in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Oh yes, he does. I have to defend the man. He stands up for what he believes in, and he knows that this is the right thing to do. He supports the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. BARRETT: I will be back again.

CHAIR: Leave denied.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I imagine the Member for Bellevue, now that he has gotten used to the idea of speaking in the House, will be quite anxious to get up again and be more and more vocal as time goes on. The more vocal he becomes, I guess the better a chance there is going to be to replace the present Government House Leader in Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to rise in the House and congratulate the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I note that his budget is included in the Executive Council. I want to, first of all, congratulate him on his appointment publicly and hope that he finds an exciting and interesting role for himself in Cabinet. I know he has been in the House a long time and has finally gotten recognition from at least one premier for his abilities in Cabinet.

I am looking at the salary for the Minister's Office. I don't expect the minister to answer this, because I know this is not his responsibility to answer, so I refer to the President of Treasury Board in terms of answering the questions. I noticed, and I was curious, about how you would decide a budget for a new department. I see that the Minister's Office, 2.3.01, itself costs $249,800 and that there is an allotment for Transportation and Communications, .03, of $50,000.

I thought it might be useful to have a look at some of the other departments and see how they dealt with the issue of Transportation and Communications. It is a very interesting story. Because, you know, certain departments, big important departments - where ministers might be expected to be travelling a fair bit because of the importance of the department, and the kind of consultations that always seem to go on in these departments -, well, you would expect big travel budgets.

For example, you would expect Health and Community Services to have a very big travel budget in the Minister's Office. Instead, I see a budget of $41,000, under 1.l.01.03. Human Resources and Employment is another area where there is a fair bit of consultation that goes on between various governments and authorities, and yet I see a travel budget for the Minister's Office of $35,000, under 1.1.01.03.

Education is another department where there is a fair degree, one would expect, of consultations between ministers about national policies and trends and that sort of stuff. You would expect to see a large travel budget. Instead, the Minister of Education's travel budget is $40,400 under 1.1.01.03.

Then when you look around a little further, you say: Intergovernmental Affairs, you would expect with the minister that he is probably beating the path to Ottawa constantly, travelling to other Provinces, other governments all over the country. The travel budget is only $50,000, under 2.3.01.03.

Yet if you look at the travel sweepstakes, the winner seems to be the Minister of Mines and Energy. Under 1.1.01.03 there is $124,900. That is the travel budget for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: What was it last year? That is a very interesting question. We are getting to the travel sweepstakes. Let me tell you what the budget was for last year first. The budget for last year was $84,900, under .03 for Mines and Energy. The budget this year is now $124,900 for the current Minister of Mines and Energy. Do you want to know what was actually spent last year in the travel and communications sweepstakes?

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, our understanding at present is that we are debating the Estimates for Executive Council, which includes - and the Mines and Energy Estimates have already passed. I suggest the hon. member is out of order in debating those particular Estimates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order. If we are going to debate relevancy this evening, I would assume this House would have adjourned a long time ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: I am only disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that you may be discouraging the hon. member from talking in the House by slapping him down in such a way. Perhaps the member was not listening to....

[A portion of this sitting was not recorded]

....twenty jobs. What this petition is saying is that the PC Party of Newfoundland, excluding the Member for Bonavista South - I have to say that the Member for Bonavista Bay South supports me in this one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: He supports me in this. The hon. Member for Bonavista South - I have said it many times - will probably be always elected in his district because he stands up for what he believes in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he does. I have to defend the man. He stands up for what he believes in, and he knows this is the right thing to do. He supports the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. BARRETT: I will be back again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave denied.

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I imagine the Member for Bellevue, now that he is used to the idea of speaking in the House, will be quite anxious to get up again and be more and more vocal as time goes on. The more vocal he becomes, I guess, the better chance he is going to get to replace the present Government House Leader in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, looking at the Estimates here - this is my first opportunity to rise in the House and congratulate the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I note that his budget is included in the Executive Council.

I want to, first of all, congratulate him on his appointment publicly. I hope that he finds an exciting and interesting role for himself in Cabinet. I know that he has been in the House for a long time and has finally received recognition from at least one Premier for his abilities in Cabinet.

I am looking at Salaries for the Minister's Office. I do not expect the minister to answer this because I know this is not his responsibility to answer, so I refer to the President of Treasury Board in terms of answers to questions. I noticed and I was curious about how you would decide a budget for a new department. I see that the Minister's Office itself costs $250,000 and there is an allotment for Transportation and Communications of $50,000. I thought it might be useful to have a look at some of the other departments and see how they dealt with the issue of transportation and communications.

It is a very interesting story because, you know, certain departments - big, important departments where ministers might be expected to be travelling a fair bit because of the importance of the department and the kind of consultations that always seem to go on in these departments - you would expect, for example, Health and Community Services to have a very big travel budget in the Minister's Office. You would expect that. Instead, I see a budget of $41,000. Human Resources and Employment is another area where there is a fair bit of consultation that goes on between various governments and authorities. Yet, I see a travel budget for the Minister's Office of $35,000. Education is another department where there is a fair degree, one would expect, of consultation between ministers about national policies and trends and that sort of stuff. You would expect to see a large travel budget. Instead, for the Minister of Education the travel budget is $40,400.

When you look around a little further you say: Well, Intergovernmental Affairs, you would expect that the minister is travelling, beating a path to Ottawa constantly, travelling to other provinces, other governments all over the country, but the travel budget is only $50,000. Yet, if you look at the travel sweepstakes, the winner seems to be the Minister of Mines and Energy: $124,900 travel budget for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much was it last year?

MR. HARRIS: What was it last year? That is a very interesting question. We are getting to the travel sweepstakes.

Let me tell you what the budget was for last year first. The budget last year was $84,900 for Mines and Energy. The budget this year is now $124,900 for the current Minister of Mines and Energy. Do you want to know how much was actually spent last year? Do you want to know what was actually spent in the travel and communications sweepstakes?

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, our understanding at present is that we are debating the Estimates for Executive Council, which include -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mines and Energy have already passed.

MR. BARRETT: The Mines and Energy Estimates have already passed.

I suggest that the hon. member is out of order in debating those particular Estimates.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

If we were going to debate relevancy this evening, I would assume this House would have adjourned a long time ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: I am only disappointed that you may be discouraging the hon. member from talking in the House by slapping him down in such a way. Perhaps the member was not listening to the point of the question. I was asking the President of Treasury Board why the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whom we would expect to travel widely in his role, is given only $50,000? I was, by comparison, looking at the Transportation and Communications budgets of various other departments.

I just happened to hit upon the fairly outrageous, in my view, budget that the current Minister of Mines and Energy has for Mines and Energy: $124,900.

AN HON. MEMBER: Outrageous!

MR. HARRIS: Outrageous.

I happened to notice that last year's budget was much more modest. The budget was only $84,900. Then I noticed another figure - these lines in the budget for 1998-1999 and then for 1999-2000 - but there is another figure that says Revised. I gather that figure is what was actually spent.

That number, in case you were wondering, that number that was actually spent by the former Minister of Mines and Energy was $166,000. I do not know where he went, but he doubled the travel budget for his department.

The legacy, I guess, is that the next minister and the current Minister of Mines and Energy is prompted to put in a budget of $124,000. If he succeeds in doubling it, the way the last minister did, we will have nearly a quarter of a million dollars spent by the present Minister of Mines and Energy on travel and communications.

I wonder - and maybe the President of Treasury Board, when she answers, can say - why is it that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who one would expect to be beating a path to Ottawa trying to straighten out the mess that we are in, when his colleague who sits in front of him refers to this Province and the people in this Province as being second-class citizens in this country, you would expect that his colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, would be beating a path to Ottawa trying to right that wrong. He only has a budget of $50,000. As the Member for Cape St. Francis said: I do not think he has been off the Avalon yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He can speak in this debate if he wants to tell us what his budget is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He wants to be asked a question.

Looking around, I do not want to stop at the current Minister of Tourism, because I notice that he has a very modest budget again this year. Last year he had a budget, as Minister of Mines and Energy, of $84,900 and he spent $166,000. This year, as Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he has a budget of $88,900; so look out next year for the revised estimates. Look out next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If he only has a budget of $88,900 to promote the Province, what was he doing spending $166,000 as Minister of Mines and Energy? Mines and Energy does not promote the Province.

We look around at the various budgets of the departments. The Minister of Justice has a modest travel budget but he makes up for it by having two departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Somebody must think travelling is fun.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I respond to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would like to go back to a question asked by the Member for - Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why can't you remember (inaudible)?

MS THISTLE: I do not know. I always think of Cape Onion and I have to look.

The Member for Cape St. Francis asked a question relating to Executive Support. That would be 2.3.02. He mentioned the variance in the Salaries, budgeted for $256,900 and this coming year $345,200.

I would like to say to the member opposite, that increase is to provide funds for a new office of the ADM, Regional Development, who will have a strong focus on regional development - rural development, regional development.

The other item that was referred to was in 2.3.03., Social and Fiscal Policy, Transportation and Communications, the budget of $29,300 again for this year but actually $55,000 was spent last year.

I would like to say to the member opposite, that was basically due to issues driven. That is the reason why that had to be increased to $55,000. This government has had a strong focus on social and fiscal policy. For that reason there was quite a lot of extensive travel and so on done last year related to that category.

With reference to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, his question related to Intergovernmental Affairs, the minister's travel budget. There is an amount of $50,000 established for that purpose. Ten thousand was for this year, which was a part of a year, and $50,000 for this coming year.

I am sure the member opposite will appreciate that this is the first time this has been a separate category, Intergovernmental Affairs. It is basically a guesstimate of travel that may be required for the upcoming year.

I have full confidence in the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that if an issue comes to the floor and he needs to go on a mission on behalf of the government's business, I am sure he will make that request to Treasury Board in the appropriate form.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate it is a new department, but wasn't the work of the Intergovernmental Affairs office being done by the Premier up until then? I have not seen a $50,000 reduction in the Premier's travel budget. In fact, the Premier's travel budget for last year was $145,000, he spent $165,000, and he has budgeted another $145,000 for this year. I am wondering whether the Premier plans to do more travel in the next year, across the country, making speeches, giving dinners, having other -

AN HON. MEMBER: Attending joyous occasions.

MR. HARRIS: - attending joyous occasions on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, across the country. Is there some justification, I ask the President of Treasury Board, for maintaining the Premier's high travel budget in light of the fact that his new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will be the one beating a path to Ottawa, going across the country, getting support for this Province's position, trying to resolve the problems of second-class citizenship, as his colleague mentioned yesterday in the House of Assembly?

One would think that the travel budget for the Premier would go down, unless the Premier has other plans. I wonder, has the Premier, in making submission to Treasury Board for travel - has that been taken into account, the fact that the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is going to be doing an awful lot of travel that the Premier formerly would do? Has the Premier, in fact, told you why he still needs $145,000 budgeted for his office, now that the new Department of Intergovernmental Affairs will be established? That is a question that I wonder if the President of Treasury Board could answer.

I do see other departments with very high travel budgets as well. I see the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture with a higher travel budget of $60,000. It is higher than that of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about him?

MR. HARRIS: I just wonder, is there some sort of hierarchy? Do you get more travel money, the more senior you are or something?

AN HON. MEMBER: The better your accent.

MR. HARRIS: The better your accent. That could be. I do not know how that would have gotten you your travel budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: There may be some explanation for the different numbers. On a serious note, perhaps the minister can answer. I do understand that perhaps the minister's travel budget may have something to do as to where the minister's district is, because travel to and from the district may well be included in that. I understand that some adjustments are made on the other side for legislative allotments, depending on whether or not a person is a minister. Perhaps the minister can explain that. For example, would the Minister of Tourism use his travel budget to travel and from his district, instead of having a travel allotment from the House? That may be some part of the explanation. I say that on a serious note, although certainly the Minister of Tourism and Culture would be an exception.

I challenge him to lay on the Table the number of times he actually went to his district, out of the $166,000 that was spent last year by the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for his district.

MR. HARRIS: That is a question that I ask the minister. Perhaps the minister can explain how that works.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Tourism.

Perhaps the minister can explain that. Is there some relationship between the minister's Transportation and Communications budget and travelling to and from the district that would be reflected in this budget but would somehow or other be taken away from an allotment for travel under the House budget? Is that in fact the case? Can you explain that?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi regarding the travel budget for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in relation to the Premier's travel budget. I would have to say that both are necessary because -

AN HON. MEMBER: Because?

MS THISTLE: Because.

Can you see all the economic development going ahead in this Province, particularly in Labrador? When you look at the negotiation on all the Labrador issues -

AN HON. MEMBER: The largest projects in North America.

MS THISTLE: - the largest projects in North America - the Churchill River project, Voisey's Bay, the Agreement in Principle last week, that does not happen right here in St. John's. You need to make contact outside the Province. You need to make contact with the other part of our government in Ottawa.

It is very necessary for the Premier to have a travel budget, as indicated, and also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I do not know, maybe an adjustment may be necessary as the year progresses for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is the first time there has been an office and a travel budget attached to that ministry. It is a new ministry. We will have to wait and see. There are many large projects that are looming, and it will be necessary to make travel to deal with those.

It was interesting that the PC Member for Lewisporte said, just a few days ago in this House, that he had no problem with ministers and members of government travelling because he knows the benefits from travel. The Member for Lewisporte said that here in this House this week. Being a Premier for forty-two days, he would understand how much travel is involved.

MR. TULK: Twenty-nine.

MS THISTLE: Twenty-nine. Being a Premier for twenty-nine days, he would understand that travel is involved if you are going to create business, if you are going to create development, if you are going to create the resources in this Province. If you sit here in St. John's it is not going to happen.

With reference to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi regarding travel, that will come up under Legislative Assembly. I will be happy to answer that at that time.

Thank you.

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

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

I have some questions on page 28 on the Opening Doors program.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a good program.

MS S. OSBORNE: It is a good program, yes.

Under 3.1.06.01., could the President of Treasury Board tell me how many people are employed in the Province in the administration of this Opening Doors program.

MS THISTLE: Did you say thirty-three?

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 28, 3.l.06.01.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Member for St. John's West for her question regarding Salaries for the Opening Doors.

Opening Doors has been one of the most beneficial programs offered. It is cost-shared by the federal and provincial governments, and it has provided an opportunity for disabled persons throughout this Province to develop skills and find a chance to actually get employed in the workplace so they can have the dignity of work.

The line referred to in Salaries, 3.l.06.01., is the cost of fifty-six permanent positions. It was budgeted last year for $1.8 million but in actual fact only $1.4 million was spent. There was a revision because of the nature of the program and there was much turnover combined with delays in recruitment. You really cannot compare it to an ordinary program because it takes time to develop skills for disabled persons, and a great deal of time is spent in actually developing resumes, on-the-job training and also interview sessions. A lot of planning and training goes into making disabled persons actually job ready.

We are forecasting a budget next year for Salaries of $1.8 million and, as I said before, this is cost-shared between federal and provincial governments.

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

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

Where are the fifty-six positions located? Are they all located on the Avalon Peninsula or are they throughout the Province?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: I would like to thank the member opposite for her question. I have the listing of every one of those employee positions, however I am unable to tell you at this time the locations of where they are employed. I would think that most of them are employed actually here in this building in the Opening Doors location; however, I will be able to get you an in-depth list later on.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Line .03., Transportation and Communications, can you tell me why that amount has increased to $38,000 from $7,900?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Well, in actual fact, the budget amount for that heading was $30,000 last year but $7,900 was the figure that was actually spent last year. It relates to travel expenses, telephone costs, and fax machine. Last year the expenses were lower than anticipated but we are looking at a budget this coming year of $38,000. That budget gets approved by the federal government as well. We submit that budget based on what we think our workload and our program will be for the upcoming year.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Line .12., in 1998-1999 an amount of $25,700 was spent on Information Technology. Can you tell me: Is there a system in place for the control of the inventory and also for the application of software of the computers?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: In response to your question, Member for St. John's West, I would like to say line .12., Information Technology - that was a very important expense for this program. It was budgeted for $5,000 but actually it came to $25,700 because we were involved in purchasing resume writing software. It was a one-time purchase. It was needed for special computer equipment which is Braille for blind, disabled persons.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: In the Auditor General's report she is a bit concerned about the control of inventory and control of the software applications. Apparently, in three of the departments software applications have been made on computers for which they were not purchased. Is there a system in place in Opening Doors for control of the inventory and also control of the software application?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I would like to respond to the Member for St. John's West's question about controls over hardware and software in the Auditor General's Report.

Actually, not particularly related to this one program here, but Treasury Board Secretariat has issued the following guidelines to departments in its management manual: Departments should maintain an inventory of hardware and software. Illegal copying or pirating of software is not permitted. To help avoid this problem the department should review periodically the software installed on its computers to ensure it is authorized software.

All departments agreed with the Auditor General's comments and are now taking steps to comply with her findings.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Do you have the statistics on how many persons with disabilities have obtained employment through the Opening Doors program?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: No, I am sorry I do not have those figures readily at hand but I would be pleased to provide those for you at a later time.

Thank you.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. The next three questions I have, I guess you probably do not have the statistics here now because they are pertaining to that one. I wonder if you could probably make a note of them, and at the same time provide me with that information. How many of the jobs that have been obtained are full-time, how many are part-time, and how many of the jobs are permanent positions? Those are all the questions I have on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I would be pleased to provide you with that information as you have indicated.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: The next section is 3.1.07, French Language. How many employees are involved in the $278,200 there on .01? It is the same page, page 28.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: With reference to your question on the French Language training, that is available to all government employees throughout our Province. I do not have the exact number who are enroled in current studies; however, I will be able to provide those for you at a later date.

Thank you.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: That was my next question. The question that I just asked was: How many employees are involved in the salary? How many people are part of the staff that are receiving $278,200?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: In response to the Member for St. John's West, I would like to say that the salary cost is of manager, instructors, secretary, contractual instructors and substitutes. The increasing cost was due to the federal government which is totally federally funded, 100 per cent.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I have just one more question on this section, on .04, Supplies. Can you tell me why there is an increase from $17,000 in 1998-1999 to $39,700 in 1999-2000?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: With reference to 3.1.07.04, that expense increase was actually budgeted for $20,000 but only $17,000 was spent. We are looking at $39,700 this coming year. It was a request by the federal government to train federal employees, and they paid 100 per cent for this cost.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: You will have the answer to the question as to how many civil servants, how many of our employees, were involved in the lessons and also the jobs in the Opening Doors project shortly, will you?

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I would like to respond to the Member for St. John's West. The questions she has asked pertaining to numbers and other data, I will be happy to supply that.

Thank you.

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

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

Just another few comments on the Estimates we are here discussing tonight, and have been since basically 3:00 p.m. today, specifically the Executive Council. I have a number of other questions, concerns and interests with respect to the Executive Council. Some of the ones we are looking at are on page 26, I say to the President of Treasury Board. That is the Treasury Board Secretariat, 3.1.01.01, Salaries. You had budgeted $135,000 and you spent $138,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I expect the President of Treasury Board would like to hear what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I forgot about the Minister of Health and the few comments she made earlier. She just reminded me. She made a couple of comments about drugs that should be administered to me for delusions. I would say to the Minister of Health that she should be careful where she treads. If this minister remains Minister of Health for much longer, there will be no nurses here to administer drugs to anybody in the Province, Mr. Chairman. That is a concern she should have. I would suggest that maybe the Minister of Health could use a few drugs administered to her.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Homeopathic. Never mind, Mr. Chairman, I will not say what I was going to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis that the nurses in this Province do more than administer drugs. They are care givers in our health care facilities.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am still shaking, Mr. Chairman.

I would point out to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace that I would imagine that one of the responsibilities of nurses in the Province is to administer drugs. I never said it was the only responsibility. I just said there would soon be no nurses here to administer them. I would say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace that before he stands and makes a comment, a point of order that is no point of order - he is taking lessons from the Government House Leader on points of order - he should get his facts straight, or listen more carefully to what is being said in this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) said it more carefully.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can try, I suppose, slow down what I am saying so the member can probably try to listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What are you saying? Another very funny comment, I must say. I am cracking up over here.

Salaries on the President of Treasury Board, 3.1.01 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I'm in convulsions here with the comments coming from the other side. They are so hilarious.

Salaries, $175,900 spent. Also under the Executive Support, under the Treasury Board Secretariat, 3.1.02.01, Salaries again, there is $448,600. Back in 1996-1997 it was $328,200. I was just wondering why it is up so much over the past couple of years. Could you give us some explanation as to if there were more employees hired on, and if they are temporary or if they are permanent? Because if they are temporary or if they are contractual, of course, we know that they can go outside the Public Service Commission.

The President of Treasury Board is responsible for the Public Service Commission also, but if they hire a temporary or contractual they do not have to go through the Public Service Commission. That is the way that this Administration is trying to circumvent the Public Service Commission, and hire God knows how many political buddies. We do not even know how many -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I said we could hire God knows how many political buddies. If they are temporary or contractual positions you do not have to go through the Public Service Commission. That is what I am saying. I am wondering. These positions, are they temporary, are they contractual, or did they go through the Public Service Commission?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: No! Mr. Chairman, our party appointed the Public Service Commission back in 1974. All civil servants that were hired were hired through the Public Service Commission, but it was only in 1996 that the present Minister of Finance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, back in 1996 -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: In 1996, one of the things that we had to go through in constructing our budget, to get a real handle on what we were paying and to make sure that our people could get seniority positions and get in to positions of seniority and get steps, one of the things we had to do was clean up another Tory mess. I think there were 1,153 temporary positions in St. John's alone. Am I correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: They were called Charlie and Haig's Angels, Charlie Power and Haig Young. Everything in the civil service was temporary because that gave them an opportunity to practise the political corruption they wanted to carry on. If the hon. gentlemen wants to know the history, that is it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Another fantastic point of order by the Government House Leader. Let me say that if the Government House Leader has such a problem with temporary and contractual positions, why does the government now have a policy that circumvents the Public Service Commission and hiring many employees today?

I asked the President of Treasury Board in the Estimates Committee would she give me a list of the people that were hired in the civil service that have not gone through the Public Service Commission that are temporary and contractual. I asked her that. If she wants me now to put that in writing, I will. I am curious though how the Government House Leader can stand in his place and criticize the former administration for putting in place the Public Service Commission, for hiring through the Public Service Commission. He is criticizing temporary and contractual positions, and that is the very thing that this administration is doing. Therefore he is criticizing government policy. He should resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Therefore, if he is criticizing government policy and he cannot live with government policy, the normal procedure would be to resign, I would think, especially since he is the Government House Leader.

Now, on to my other remarks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your policy, your party policy.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are doing it now. That is the policy you are using, I say to the Government House Leader. That is the very point I am making. Go see in the past three years, I say to the Government House Leader, how many people are hired in the public service that are either contractual or temporary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, it is easy enough for the Government House Leader to say go away and shake his head, but those are the facts.

Mr. Chairman, they are asking me questions of what happened years before I even thought about getting into politics. To me, I am more concerned about what is happening today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) about Peckford (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If you want to go back in time to the previous premier, Mr. Wells, and before that Rideout and then Peckford, then let's go back to the first premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Joey Smallwood. How many did he appoint? How many did he appoint, I wonder? There was no such thing as a Public Service Commission: just hire who he wants. Pick up the phone and hire Joe, hire Tommy, hire this guy. That is the way things went. All Liberals had to be hired.

I want to go on record here now and want to make sure that I understand what the Minister of Mines and Energy said. The Minister of Mines and Energy said that's the way it should be, that he can hire who he wants. That is the way it is today, because you do not follow the Public Service Commission act, or whatever. That is the way it is happening today, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. People are being hired right, left and centre and I would question if a lot of the people being hired are even qualified for the positions. Some of the feedback I am getting from civil servants, and some of the people that are being hired in positions, have no -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure for me to rise again and take part in this debate. I find it difficult to sit here tonight and listen to the hon. members opposite talk about temporary employees and about circumventing the Public Service Commission and about hiring people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I suggest the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is after sandbagging enough members today. He should stop sandbagging and get up and participate in the debate.

I want to make some comment about temporary employees. I remember when I worked with the Department of Education, and subsequently with the department of career development and advanced studies. I went into my office one morning and this young person was there. She was sitting in my office and I said: Good morning, how are you this morning? She said: Great. I said: Why are you here? Do you have a problem with one of your courses or what is going on? She said: No, I am your new secretary. I am from down on the Southern Shore and I was talking to Charlie last night. He told me that you could go in, Mr. Barrett needed a secretary, and report to the office Monday morning.

So when I walked into my office on Monday morning here was this young person, a real nice person - actually she worked out to be a real good employee - but I mean all of a sudden I walked into my office and she said: Mr. Barrett, I am your new secretary. This was somebody Charlie met at an event, a fireman's ball on a Saturday night, and on Monday morning she reported for work. The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis is up talking about the Public Service Commission?

So let's get back to the important matters at hand. I have been here now since 3:00 p.m. and I am trying to get some answers. I'm trying to find out where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stands on eliminating 120 jobs out of his district. I notice he has not gotten up yet.

The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's sandbagged the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne today and we find that the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has not risen yet. The day will soon be over. The time is passing by. I notice on the clock now it is just about 9:20 p.m. and I understand we are here until about 10:00 p.m. He has about forty minutes to stand in his place and wonder if he supports the 120 people who are employed in the three businesses in his community. I will give him one more opportunity - as a matter of fact, I will not use up the ten minutes - if he wants to rise and tell us what he supports. Does he support the 120 people who work in that area? Does he support the three businesses? Does he support the town of Whitbourne in terms of the $40,000 they get in property tax? All these issues he needs to address.

I also want to apologize before I sit down because this might be my last opportunity to speak tonight on this issue. I want to apologize to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi because I got up on a point of order and I was wrong. I admit I was wrong. One thing I always do in life, if I make a mistake I always admit I made a mistake. I got up on a point of order which was the wrong thing to do, because he was really indirectly getting around - by using Mines and Energy and the other departments - to question something in Intergovernmental Affair. Then when I realized his background, where he came from and his profession, I understood it. Because he is a lawyer and they normally get paid by the hour, so therefore the longer he takes to present the case the more he gets paid. When I realized his background, I said: Percy, you are all wrong, because his objective is to take as much time as possible because he gets paid by the hour.

I want to apologize to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I did not really mean what I said, so I -

AN HON. MEMBER: He (inaudible) paid very much by the hour, not him.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, he gets paid pretty highly by the hour. I want to also tell him a little story, because he represents Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The hon. Member for Bonavista South and I visited a part of the Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi district in Pennsylvania. The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi should know about it. Because on a farmland in Pennsylvania there is a lake that a Newfoundlander who moved there a long time ago - as a matter of fact, he moved with a family and he inherited a lot of property, and he is a multi-millionaire. He got lonely. What he did was he flooded the back garden on this farm, and as you walk out through his back door you see the sign: Quidi Vidi Lake. It is right in the back garden. I suggest the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi should visit that gentleman at some time because I am sure that he would be very pleased to see you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they have a regatta down there?

MR. BARRETT: He has the regatta. The first Wednesday in August he has the regatta.

Getting back to the important issue, we want to find out where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I just talked about the awful habit lawyers have, and they talk about things over and over -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

A point of order, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I realize we are debating the Executive Council, but if the member wants to propose that I be given a travel budget I would be very happy to consent that we move to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I'm delighted to hear that the member is able to travel to Pennsylvania and to go on a road show with the Member for Bonavista South. They may have to drive, one drive and the other snore, and then change positions. He certainly seems to have a travel budget to get as far as Pennsylvania. This hon. member has no travel budget at all. Fortunately, I almost live in my district so it is okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) travel budget (inaudible) as I got.

MR. HARRIS: District budget. That is for travel within the district.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have not flown to Labrador lately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I'm delighted to hear that the member is supportive of providing travel budgets for leaders of parties in the House and we will take it up on another occasion.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: To that point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order. I would move, and I believe the Opposition House Leader might even agree with me, that we would immediately give the hon. gentleman a travel budget to take him to Philadelphia, providing the travel budget just buys a one-way ticket and he does not come back.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member of course is just taking away my valuable time in the debate. It is a point of nonsense, as usual. Being a former teacher, I wonder if today the lectures are really getting through to the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I am just wondering if there is some other way I should present the subject. I might have to rise again once the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's hauls more of those petitions out of his desk there and gets up on more of these petitions, because I really want to let the people in Whitbourne know tomorrow, when I stop there on my way to my district, where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stands on eliminating 120 jobs out of his district.

Do you realize that we would have 120 people less working in Newfoundland and Labrador? When he goes on the road show next week he is going to find out that if we do not have more tax dollars, if there is not more personal income tax coming in, we are going to have to lay off more teachers, more nurses and more public employees. Because if that is the policy of the party - and I don't think it is. I don't think the Leader of the Opposition stands for that. I remember during the election campaign seeing his big blue bus stop in Whitbourne to refuel.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think he knows Whitbourne is in his district.

MR. BARRETT: I don't think he knows, too. Probably we should take him out and show him around the district because I don't think he remembers that Whitbourne and Markland are in his district. The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne should stand now and tell us where he stands on eliminating 120 jobs out of rural Newfoundland, 120 jobs out of his district. I think the hon. member should stand in his place and say. I will give him one last opportunity to get up. If he is concerned about rural Newfoundland, we should be taking 120 more jobs and putting them in Whitbourne.

I spent the first two years that I was elected fighting, because the St. John's bureaucrats - do you know the St. John's bureaucrats, the bureaucrats in social services? Thanks to the hon. House Leader, who we had the foresight to appoint as Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services when we got elected, the bureaucrats in St. John's wanted - the excavation was already done for the youth centre in Whitbourne. They were lobbying to move that youth centre from Whitbourne to St. John's. The PC Party wanted to build it in St. John's and -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. BARRETT: - this hon. member had to fight for a year or two to make sure that the youth centre was built in Whitbourne so that the jobs were in rural Newfoundland. We talk about taking the public service and putting it out in rural Newfoundland and providing jobs in rural Newfoundland. If we want to listen to the Member for St. John's West, she would take everything out of rural Newfoundland and put it on this side of the overpass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know what has gotten into the Member for Bellevue. I have been here since 1990 and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you have not (inaudible) 1990.

MR. HARRIS: I was elected on December 11, 1990.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is different. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I say to the member, there was nobody here since 1990, because nobody came in here for the first -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: If we want to be really precise, I say to the Government House Leader, there was nobody here since 1990 because there was nobody here in this room until -

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - the session opened in 1991, because before that there were some people upstairs on the ninth floor.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

The hon. gentleman, yes, got elected in 1990, but if he is going to start bringing up what the contributions are made to this House and how people are, I say to him that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, Hansard publishes an index every year. Every year they publish an index, and on the back page it has the speakers' names, the members' names, and it tells you how many times they spoke. Some places go on for one or two lines. Some people go on for half a page. Some people take up a page or more. So the member can look, and other members can look, anybody can look and see.

My point about the Member for Bellevue is this. I'm wondering what is happening to him today, Mr. Chairman, because today he has spoken more than all the rest of the time since I have been here, put together. I don't know whether he is after - he must have found that bunny rabbit, took the batteries out and plugged himself in. He has the bunny's batteries in him.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: He has the bunny's batteries in him and he is talking and talking and talking up a storm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Despite what he says about lawyers being paid by the hour, someone must have told him that the more he talks the better off he is going to be. That may be so, Mr. Chairman. If he keeps talking more, maybe he will get the attention of the Premier and one day, before his political career is over, he will be in the Cabinet. That may be the purpose of all of this, I don't know. That may be the purpose of it.

I rose, Mr. Chairman, to ask a serious question to the President of Treasury Board on the Office of the Executive Council. It has to do with the allocation on page 22, item 2.4.04., Labrador Affairs Secretariat. I do note a significant change, Minister, on the allocations for Labrador Affairs. I note that the entire budget for the Labrador Affairs Secretariat for 1998-1999 was $101,100 of which only $70,000 was spent, I say to the President of Treasury Board, and I notice that the budget for 1999-2000 is four times -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am having problems hearing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, could I have the protection of the Chair here? I know they are not talking to me or hassling me this time, but I am trying to ask some serious questions to the President of Treasury Board and I hope that she is able to hear me above the din.

There is a significant -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Chair is not even listening to you.

MR. HARRIS: I am sure the minister responsible for Labrador wants to hear me especially, because we are talking about the Labrador Affairs Secretariat which is not his responsibility because it comes under Treasury Board, but I am asking a serious question because our caucus is very concerned about Labrador. In fact, half of our caucus represents Labrador. We are so concerned about Labrador that we have half our caucus here from Labrador.

Seriously, Minister, the allotment has been quadrupled from $70,000 spent last year to $275,900. I notice Salaries increased from $50,000 to $146,900. Transportation and Communications: $80,000 up from $10,000 last year, so that bespeaks some serious plans.

I wonder if the minister can explain what the salary allotments are, up from $50,000 to $146,900; Transportation and Communications for $80,000, under the Labrador Affairs Secretariat. I am sure there is an explanation. I wonder if the minister could let the House know what the salary positions are, what the purpose of the significant increases in expenditures are for? I will sit down and let the minister answer.

CHAIR (Smith): The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to answer the questions raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi with reference to the heading 2.4.04, Labrador Affairs, in particular Salaries. Actually, last year we budgeted for $42,600 and there was an amount of $50,000 spent in Salaries which was one permanent and two contractual positions. This year, 1999-2000, we are forecasting $146,900.

The answer will be the same for Transportation and Communications. We budgeted for $30,000 and actually spent $10,000 but this year we are budgeting for $80,000. I am sure that the hon. member opposite will know the reason for that increase in expenditure.

As the member opposite knows, there have been successful negotiations recently on Labrador issues. There is a strong focus on Labrador as it pertains to the Churchill River project and also the Voisey's Bay development. You can understand why this government is committed to spending more money in that direction because it has the potential -

MR. ANDERSEN: And the land claims.

MS THISTLE: And the land claims agreement, which the Member for Torngat Mountains just reminded me of, that was signed this week, the Agreement in Principle.

The increase in Salaries, I would say to the member opposite, is an investment, an investment in our future, an investment in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in generating some economic development. It is a strong focus and it has the potential to bring about prosperity to this Province. That is the reason why we are directing new funds in that area this year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the minister is misunderstanding my question. These are not critical questions implying any criticism of the minister or the expenditure. We are very much in favour of it. My question was: What are the positions? You had one permanent and two contractual positions last year, and now you have three times the money. What positions does the minister envisage filling under this Labrador Affairs Secretariat?

The minister is being very general and, I think, vague. Perhaps she could be a little more specific. I am not being critical of the expenditure, I think it is certainly a good idea. Obviously the developments that are taking place in Labrador and the fact that things are happening we are very positive about, but I just want to know if the minister can be a little bit more specific about what positions will be created with this money, and what kinds of skills will they be looking for to fill those positions?

It is a very big travel budget. I know it is expensive to travel in Labrador, but is there some specific plan to conduct a particular round of visits? Is it associated with some particular activity? Maybe the minister responsible for Labrador Affairs has some further information. I am not trying to be critical of the minister or put her on the spot. I would just like a bit of an explanation as to what the specifics are, what specific positions will be filled, and what are the specific plans in relation to that?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to respond to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Salaries section indicated represents one permanent position, which is Intergovernmental Affairs Analyst, and two contractual positions which would allow expertise in research and that sort of expertise related to land claims issues.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know some hon. members may be wanting to adjourn but I am just trying to ask a few questions here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The minister has indicated there was one permanent position and two temporary positions out of the $50,000. We are now looking at $146,900. Are there new positions being anticipated, and what would they be?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to respond to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The salary related in the Estimates does relate to one permanent position - that is the Intergovernmental Affairs Analyst - and the two contractual positions will be for expertise in legal research and other matters pertaining to the Labrador land issues.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make a few closing comments and just think about what has been accomplished in the House today since we started our debate - I think it was around 3:00 p.m. - a little over six-and-a-half hours ago. I would like to look at the accomplishments of the day.

Many, many concerns have been raised and the President of Treasury Board has been standing numerous times answering some very excellent questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, we got more information from the President of Treasury Board than we ever get from the Minister of Mines and Energy. I say it is a great accomplishment. There have been some very legitimate questions asked from this side of the House to the President of Treasury Board, and she has been very quick to give some answers; and any that she did not have, she is willing to find out for us. Many of the ministers on the other side of the House could take a lesson from the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: What else has been accomplished today in the House? What else has been accomplished? Well, the Member for Bellevue has found his voice box. That is one major accomplishment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: That is one major accomplishment here today. What else did we find out today, Mr. Chairman? We found out that the attributes of sandbagging are alive and well for the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: He sandbagged the Minister of Education out in his district today, Mr. Chairman. He has done a very good job, and that is another major accomplishment. What other accomplishments were here today? We uncovered and took the cloak off the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: He has finally come to stand up - this is the first time I have been in the House and the Minister of Mines and Energy did not stand on his feet and rebuke the comments from this side of the House especially when it came - and many people in this House for the first time found out the real story of the Minister of Mines and Energy, when he stood out here on the steps of Confederation Building and rolled the tears down his cheeks. Many members said: What was all that about? They know now, when we come to sandbag him. They know now where the Member for Humber East learned how to sandbag, Mr. Chairman. He went to the Grimes' school of sandbagging.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: He passed with flying colours, too, after what he did to the Minister of Education in Corner Brook today.

What else did we accomplish here today? The Member for Topsail has gone. He has left the House, so I will not make a comment on him.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that we have had a day of accomplishments today. We have unearthed the Minister of Mines and Energy. If there is one major accomplishment here today, we have formed a `meetloaf' committee.

I am very pleased to say that the president has done very well in his new position. He is on his feet all day, the chairperson of the `meetloaf' committee, the Member for Bellevue. The vice-chairperson of the `meetloaf' committee, the Member for Humber East, did very well today. The Member for Topsail, the legal side of the committee, has done very well today also. The `meetloaf' committee is off and running.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The `meetloaf' committee has two roles. Sometimes they meet but most times they loaf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is great we have accomplished that much here today in a matter of less than seven hours. I could go on all night about the accomplishments here.

We found out a lot of things in this House today, I am telling you. We found out a few things about the Government House Leader. It is very interesting when he tells the story about travelling up to the premier's office in the previous administration. He went up to the premier's office not once or twice; he was called up to the premier's office on four occasions to be told by the premier that he was not going to be in the Cabinet. On four occasions the premier called him up to the office and said: I'm sorry, member, but you are not going to be in the Cabinet, go back to the back benches, go back to the back seat, go back to the third row and stay there until someone else comes in to take it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Okay. I say, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say in closing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I must say, I'm getting a fair amount of advice, but I am the kind of fellow who paddles my own canoe so I just want to travel on for another little while.

I am very surprised at a couple of things here today, and mostly surprised at the Minister of Mines and Energy. I await with anticipation for the next day that we go into debate in this House and listen to the Minister of Mines and Energy stand, because he speaks from experience. He knows, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has a problem with me holding up a book. Last week he had a problem with me having my hands in my pockets. Am I supposed to go around with my hands behind my back like most of the members on that side? I say no, sir.

We stand here today to discuss the Office of the Executive Council. We stand here today with a full day of accomplishments. I say: Congratulations to this side of the House for a full day of accomplishments -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: - and a fine job well done. I have to say to the President of Treasury Board that I have to include her in that also, because she did a fine job today too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I am not partisan, I say. I can congratulate someone on the other side just as easily as I can congratulate my own, Mr. Chairman. With that, now that the chairperson of the `meetloaf' committee is on his feet, I would like to adjourn debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, the chairperson of the `meetloaf' committee, he talked about the Member for Humber East being the great sandbagger he is. I think we saw the greatest evidence of a member being sandbagged today in this House.

It is unbelievable that a member sitting on the same side - as a matter of fact, there is only one person sitting between them, my good friend for St. John's South, who did a great favour for me in the last provincial election. He and the PC Party were so much against the development on Gisborne Lake that the airwaves were crackling with the sounds of the Member for St. John's South opposed to developments in rural Newfoundland. Some of those members on the opposite side, we should give them a road map.

It is interesting that the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is part of the road show because if he was not part -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a point of order.

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

I have to stand and correct my good friend for Bellevue because he knows that I was against the raping of our resources, the export of raw resources, but I am fully in favour of development at Gisborne Lake. Just not the export of our raw resources. I think the Member for Bellevue is fully aware of that, so I wanted that to be in the record, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: As usual, the hon. Member for St. John's South, it was not a point of order.

Before I was rudely interrupted I was going to say something. I have to compliment the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne because without him we would not have a road show. There is no way we could have a road show without the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne because he does know Newfoundland and Labrador. He knows that there are communities and places that exist beyond the overpass, because he is taking the hon. Members for St. John's East and Waterford Valley with him. If they did not have the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, they would never find their way beyond the overpass, because they do not know anything exists beyond the overpass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and they want to twin the highway so they can get out and back as fast as they can because if they go beyond that overpass they may be contaminated. They may learn something.

I will tell the people in Whitbourne tomorrow evening when I travel to Whitbourne - as a matter of fact, I may visit a lot of my friends in Whitbourne tomorrow afternoon. I just may drop into their houses tomorrow afternoon and say hello to them, see how things are going, and give them a progress report on what is happening in the House of Assembly. Say that their member had an opportunity to get up and defend providing 120 jobs in their district but the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's sandbagged him, put the sandbags around them.

He is there now. All we see is just the top of his head, and thank God he is not like the Member for Cape St. Francis. We can see the top of his head, the black hair is still shining above the sandbags. He is here and has not stood up and defended the people of Whitbourne today and the 120 jobs. So it is unfortunate, but when he goes on the road show next week at least he is taking the Members for St. John's East and Waterford Valley and showing them where to go. He is providing a worthwhile purpose.

Mr. Chairman, we have accomplished a lot today. We know where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stands on the divided highway. He wants the highway to be divided through Whitbourne. He wants the two overpasses. He wants the government to spend $12.9 million instead of $3.6 million, and he wants the 120 jobs, the three businesses, closed down in his district. He wants the town of Whitbourne not being able to get $40,000 in property taxes. He wants the Whitbourne dump to remain where it is. He wants the smoke from the Whitbourne dump to blind all the townies travelling from St. John's to Port aux Basques.

We know it has been a great day for democracy, a great day as a parliamentarian, and it will go down in history as one of my greatest days in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I am so glad that I stood up for the residents of Harbour Main-Whitbourne today and told them where I stand, and that I am all in favour of 120 jobs existing in their district so that we can get more tax dollars, more money coming into the Province so that the road show can be halted because we will not have to lay off all of those teachers. If we could provide another 120 jobs we may not have to lay off some of those teachers, and the Minister of Education -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Monty's.

MR. BARRETT: Monty's will close down. All those places will close down. Mr. Chairman, it has been a great day.

I move that the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again so that tomorrow morning we can get back and see where the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stands on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

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

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow. Before we do, we will be back on Estimates. We will continue along the line and around the circle that we are going.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.