April 29, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 14


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to pass along congratulations to several provincial award winners of the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Association, from my district. Coach of the Year went to Vince Pickett of Marystown. Mr. Pickett was selected after leading the Canada Games Men's Team to a silver medal in August, 2001. He had also won a Sports Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Coach of the Year recently for his accomplishments in coaching.

Brian Francis of Burin was named Senior Male Player of the Year. Mr. Francis competed with the Canada Games Team, the Marystown Challenge Cup entry, as well as the St. Francis Xavier University Atlantic Intercollegiate Team. His stellar play on the Canada Games Team earned him a selection as top defender and an all-star selection. He also received second all-star team status while playing for St. FX.

Judi Kelloway of Burin was named Executive of the Year. Ms Kelloway is the provincial minor soccer chairperson in the Province and a working member of both the National Competition Committee and the Female Coaching Committee. She is also known for her leadership at both local and provincial levels.

On behalf of all Members of the House of Assembly, I congratulate Vince Pickett, Brian Francis and Judi Kelloway for their accomplishments in soccer, and I am sure the Burin Peninsula will continue to make its mark in provincial soccer circles.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member, I want to welcome to the House of Assembly today, fourteen Levels I, II and III students from St. John's Adventist Academy, accompanied by their teacher, Nadine Matthews; chaperones, Jamie Stagg and Sharna Riddinger, from the District of St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Wednesday evening, I had the opportunity to attend the Annual General Meeting and Election of Officers of the St. Mary's Bay North Area Development Association. It was one of the largest meetings that they have had in the past number of years, with an immense amount of local interest.

The representatives attending were from HRDC, including the guest speaker for the evening, Mr. Randy Williams, the Avalon Director. There were several representatives from the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, notably Paddy O'Keefe. There were representatives there from Loyola Hearn's office, the Avalon Gateway Regional Economic Board, and many of the local councils and development agencies were present also.

The St. Mary's Bay North Area Development Association, Mr. Speaker, is a 100 per cent volunteer board. They have received, as most development associations in the Province have received, no core funding for the past six or seven years, and have been operating on a fully volunteer basis. When the treasurer gave the financial statement, Mr. Speaker, the forty volunteers had a total travel budget last year of $263. That should give us all something to think about in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Later on that night, Mr. Speaker, HRDC and others were involved in signing almost $1 million worth of contracts for the St. Mary's Bay North area, somewhere around $991,000, which included work on Father Duffy's Well on Salmonier Line and the Rocky River enhancement projects, Mr. Speaker. Re-elected again for another term were the total executive of the St. Mary's Bay North Development Association. Elected once again, I would like to congratulate: Chairperson, Junior Linehan; Vice-Chairperson, Mr. Peter Daley; Treasurer, Mr. Bill Gambin; and Secretary, Marjorie Gibbons.

Again, I would like to congratulate the St. Mary's Bay North Area Development Association -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - on a great year last year, and I look forward to working with them in the year ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the Better Business Bureau plays a very important role in our economy today. It protects consumers from being cheated by unfair or illegal schemes and gives them confidence in their business affairs.

The Better Business Bureau handles complaints about businesses or business procedures from the general public through written letters and telephone calls. It will then contact the business in question concerning the problem and pass on the information to the person who made the complaint.

The Better Business Bureau has created a directory and buyers' guide to better help people out. This year, the Better Business Bureau will host a national annual conference to held here in St. John's on May 23-25.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Provincial Better Business Bureau on their ongoing work and their achievements. I also wish to thank them and congratulate them for taking the initiative and indeed hosting the national conference in May.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated group of volunteers who support the Pentecostal Senior Citizens' Home in Clarke's Beach. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday night, I was honoured to be invited to the facility's Volunteer Recognition Night, most appropriately held during National Volunteer Week.

The facility manager, Ms Beverley Bellefleur spoke proudly of the volunteer program, commenting at times that there are as many volunteers as paid staff helping to meet the needs of the residents and more importantly, creating a friendly, homely environment in that institution. All would agree that the dedication and commitment of the volunteers certainly added to the quality of care for the residents. It is interesting to note that a number of the residents themselves continue to be active as volunteers themselves, unselfishly giving their time and service to others.

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker, has to go out to the staff of this facility, in particular, Ms Georgina Coveyduck and Mr. Paul Sheppard for facilitating this volunteer program. A night of prayer, song and appreciation led by the Chaplain Pastor Petten honoured the efforts of these volunteers. Certificates of appreciation were given out to all, as well as the different churches and organizations involved.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I speak for all members of this House in congratulating this group of volunteers from the Pentecostal Senior Citizens Home in Clarke's Beach on a successful year of service to our seniors and wish them well for continued success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to inform members of this hon. House of yet another sporting event that is being added to a fast growing list of events that is making Corner Book and Western Newfoundland the sporting capital of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: On the weekend of April 5, the Western Sno-Riders held its fifth annual Race on the Rock at Marble Mountain, an event that attracted some 5,000 spectators and some 177 registered racers.

In the Uphill Drags portion of the competition, competitors blasted 1,000 feet up the Cruiser ski run to compete for the title of: King of the Hill. For the third year in a row this title went to Mr. Cory MacLean of Truro, Nova Scotia driving a $75,000, modified 1401 cc Arctic Cat, owned by Joe Capstick also of Nova Scotia.

In the Sno-Cross event, riders were required to traverse a course of bumps, that we would perhaps refer to as ‘yes-mams', up and down a hill with a couple of hairpin turns. This years "King of the Bumps" was, for the fourth year in a row, also from Nova Scotia, this time Cheticamp, was Mr. Jean Guy Aucoin.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Western Sno-Riders for organizing this event and for making it a positive, financial contributor to the Corner Brook local economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Random Island Academy Drama Group for winning Best Play at the 25th annual Vista district drama festival which was held in Trinity at The Rising Tide Arts Centre this last week.

The fifteen students in the drama group performed the comedy Hooray for Johnny Canuck under the direction of their teacher and drama coach, Ray Budgell.

The Random Island Academy has been involved in this drama festival for the past twenty years, Mr. Speaker, and this is the fourth time winning best play. They now go on to represent the Vista School District in Gander on May 9 through May 11.

Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of noting here that Random Island Academy is an all-grade school with only seventy-five high school students in which to select from for this particular competition, and they were competing with high schools that had over 500 students enrolled. All of the students are very excited about their success and look forward to competing in the Provincial Drama Festival.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this House to join with me in congratulating them for this win, and wishing them well in their next competition in Gander.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am announcing, today, that government will release the Windmill Bight Golf Course Project from further Environmental Assessment subject to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - proponent providing an Environmental Protection Plan for approval before construction begins. The Environmental Protection Plan must demonstrate how the proponent will prevent or lessen the negative impacts of the development on the environment during the design, construction and operations of the project. The proponent has committed, in the registration document, to implementing protection measures to preserve and conserve the natural features of the area.

Mr. Speaker, as a first step, the proponent will be required to submit a final project design in an attempt to provide an acceptable design that protects the natural features of the area. The EPP will also address any effects that could arise related to siltation, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and other materials. In addition, the proponent will be required to implement an environmental effects monitoring program to detect any possible adverse environmental effects due to the project and take remedial measures to address impacts.

Prior to release of the project, government will amend the boundaries of Windmill Bight Provincial Park to accommodate the development of the Golf Course. This will require the removal of approximately eighty hectares from the existing park boundaries. Government will seek to add additional area to the park to ensure that the total size of the park remains the same. At this stage, the proponent plans to construct nine holes initially so government will lease approximately forty acres. The other portion will be held by the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, the features being impacted by the project have been identified elsewhere in the region. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. Julie Bettney, has directed her officials to assess Cape Freels and Deadman's Bay for suitability as an ecological reserve, under the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act. This process will include public consultation in the region.

We have weighed the public comments, considered the advise of all government departments and agencies and we feel we have made a balanced decision, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister providing me with a copy of the statement prior to the House opening. However, I say to the minister, that this has been released from Environmental Assessment without a full environmental assessment being done. What we are looking at here is asking the proponent to prevent or lessen negative environmental effects because of the development. What we are doing here is removing eighty hectares of ecological reserve. We are removing eighty hectares from a park.

Mr. Speaker, what we are against on this side of the House is the minister using his discretion to make positions such as this. This is what is going to happen with the new legislation that is put before the House that we are debating. It provides the minister with far greater discretion to make decisions such as this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: If this minister has this much discretion right now, what type of discretion is the minister going to have with the new legislation?

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - this was released without a full environmental assessment to ensure there would be no negative environmental effects, instead of asking the proponent to lessen the environmental effects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In July of 1999, this government released a document called Our Smiling Land, the government's vision for the protection and use of Newfoundland and Labrador's outdoor resources in which it said: "Government will maintain its core network of 14 provincial parks, seven natural scenic attractions and the Newfoundland T'Railway, and will not lease any additional parks."

This decision, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely without vision, as it claimed, and totally without protection of a habitat that has been protected for thirty-six years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the notion of saying that we are protecting the park because it is no longer going to be a park is absolutely outrageous double-talk by this government. To say that we are looking after the parks by taking it out of the park is that, no parks, no protected areas in this Province, are protected. In this case, it is even being financed by this government under the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation which is supposed to be loans to municipalities instead of grants, into which this government plans to put $2.6 million to build the nine holes of what is proposed to be a $15 million project. Mr. Speaker, this is not in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, during the last federal and provincial elections, Liberal parties at both levels promised to make improvements to our equalization program. Just eighteen months ago, former Premier Brian Tobin quit provincial politics to fight in Ottawa for a better equalization formula. Two months ago he quit again, because he couldn't get any satisfaction from Ottawa. Now, another former Premier, Beaton Tulk, has quit provincial politics to go to Ottawa on another promise of correcting this injustice. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are tired of broken promises.

I ask the Premier: Premier, what is the financial plan to move forward now that Paul Martin, on Friday, made it very clear that we are stuck with this equalization program for at least another two years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have always been, and continue to be, at least two main parts to our particular strategy and plan, Mr. Speaker. One of them, obviously, which I know is supported by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the NDP, is the issue just raised. Even though Minister Martin - and I spoke with him when he was here last week and indicated that our disagreement still continues with the federal government - indicated that he is not about to change today, it is not going to stop every single one of us from asking every day for a different fiscal arrangement with the Government of Canada. That is one part of it. It is not arriving on the scene, it is not being announced, it is not being accomplished as quickly and as soon as we would like, but that doesn't deter us from trying again, every single day, with the full support of the Leader of the Opposition, I would state to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he will concur that when he speaks again.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have said it on numerous occasions in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have accepted it as our challenge as the government to also do anything, and everything, we possibly can to grow our own source revenues in Newfoundland and Labrador to lessen our dependency upon the Government of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The combination of the two is where the real substance for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, on a fiscal relationship basis, will stand. We look forward to accomplishing both: growing our own source revenues but, at the same time, challenging the federal government every day, despite the fact that we get frustrated some days, to change the fundamental relationship between us and them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am at a loss to understand, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, how our Premier can be so friendly and so close to a man who is clearly no friend of this Province, Paul Martin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in early January, long before this Budget was introduced, former federal Industry Minister, Brian Tobin, said: This Province should not expect any changes to the equalization program. In fact, he said, it would be less than honest of him to suggest that changes would be forthcoming.

Yet, in preparing her Budget, the Minister of Finance said that this government is still hoping for changes. But if those changes do not happen, she said, I guess we will just have to deal with that next year.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell the people why he has ignored the comments of this Province's federal representative, our representative to the federal government, in preparing this Budget? Does he still think that hope alone is an acceptable foundation for our fiscal plan for the next twelve months?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can answer, for certain, that we always live in hope. We are a very hopeful group, as Liberals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We see a positive future for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We are not pessimists; we are optimists. We always tend to look at any issue and see the glass as half full rather than half empty. That is the very nature, that speaks volumes as to the attitude and the approach.

We have differences of opinion with the federal government and I believe the record is clear, that in Canada today I am probably the most persistent and most vocal critic on an ongoing basis of the Government of Canada because I believe that they are not doing things that are in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that you can accomplish a lot more by being inside the group and arguing the case every day then being outside the group because I will not make a statement, which the Leader of the Opposition has made with respect to federal-provincial relationships, in which he said: my position with respect to the Government of Canada is very clear. The Government of Canada, said the Leader of the Opposition, is public enemy number one.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the people of the Province how that is going to get us any particular agreements with the Government of Canada. If that is the approach that is going to be taken, we will work inside the system, we will deal with our frustrations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and our disappointments but we will keep working because we believe there is a bright future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I share with the Premier the hope for this Province. However, Mr. Premier, when I ran my businesses I ran them on good, sound, solid, financial information and that is the only way you can run a business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Considering you like to work from the inside, I find it strange that you are in a war with words with the Member of Parliament for Labrador, Mr. Lawrence O' Brien, when this government chose to rob the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund of $97 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: And, Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Bay of Islands, after he got the family wharf, decided to take off -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for a government that is working from the inside, its members still choose as well - the hon. Member for Bay of Islands who chose to take on the federal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador how he expects his federal Liberal counterparts to support him on changes in the equalization program when his own government and the Member for Bay of Islands continue to abuse their federal Liberal colleagues and fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it seems fairly obvious for anyone who is listening in or tuned in, or paying attention, that there are not many serious questions from the Leader of the Opposition today. These are old questions they have been asked before.

Mr. Speaker, the difference is this - again, it shows the difference in approach and style. We, as Liberals, believe in this: that everybody's opinion is valuable. Because we are in the same party it doesn't mean that every single one of us, every single day, agree on every single issue. We welcome open dialogue and we even welcome occasional differences of opinion because it gets the issue debated. We debate the issues amongst ourselves openly and freely.

Mr. Speaker, let me just mention this. The Leader of the Opposition talks about good business practices; that he ran his businesses on good, sound practices. Well, the government does not have it, as part of a practice, to allow certain debts to go unpaid or certain bills to be left unpaid as part of a business arrangement. We have to honour our commitments, and if he wants to stand up and say to the people of the Province what I am talking about, I won't say anything further about it, but he knows he has been involved in business practices in Central Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - where there are people out there today who are still owed money from arrangements in companies that he was involved in. That is a good business practice that this government will not engage in, Mr. Speaker, ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I would not expect any more from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, than a statement like that. More personal attacks.

AN HON. MEMBER: We, on this side have (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as well, I wouldn't expect the Premier of this Province to say that questions about our fiscal and financial future are not important enough, they are just old questions. What a statement from the Premier of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in order to look good in the public eye, this government developed a budget that was misleading to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Here we are today, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks after the Budget and we are now amending it, the deficit; something that they should have foreseen, that they actually knew.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Premier, can you tell us, can you tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, have you been caught again, once more, misleading the people of this Province, or is this just another gimmick like your promise to change the equalization program in two successive elections?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can tell the members of the Legislature and you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of the Province, is that we have not been caught again changing our minds on a policy issue, like the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the relocation of public servants in the last year, the Leader of the Opposition is on the public record again as saying he was absolutely, completely, opposed to the notion of relocating public servants. He did say that if there was a brand new operation in place, that they should put it some place. That made sense. Because he happened to be in his own riding on Thursday past, he indicated that if a certain operation was set up in St. John's by this government, and if they became the government, he was putting the public servants on notice that they had better not get too comfortable in St. John's because he would pick them up body and bones and move them to Corner Brook and make them work in Corner Brook, because it was his riding and his district, and he was speaking to some people in the West Coast capital city at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the differences of opinion on any one day, on any one issue, that is what you will not get from us and that is what you will get every single day from them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We will stand on our record, our Budget, every single time, because the people of the Province know what they are getting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Premier and I would like to thank the Minister of Tourism for following my recommendation, our policy, last Thursday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: When I announced in Corner Brook that our government would move the institute for bio-diversity to Corner Brook, the following day they announced it in Corner Brook!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I now ask you, Premier, will you also move the Natural Heritage Stewardship Secretariat to Corner Brook as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is getting a little excited again, a little angry again. He just made the point again perfectly, Mr. Speaker. The Natural Heritage Stewardship Secretariat, which has been put in place now for six or seven months by this government, a new initiative to go out and attract money from non-governmental sectors to support research in the wildlife development and protection of conservation, has been operational here in St. John's for some six or seven months, and it is funded into the future to continue on for the next year.

The Opposition Leader, who was against relocation, absolutely against relocation, is now standing up and saying: Will you take those people who have been here in St. John's from the beginning, and who have been working here in St. John's from the beginning, and move them to Corner Brook? Because now he is for relocation as long as it is something that he wants to talk about and something that is going to Corner Brook.

We are dealing with the whole range of issues. We have a new initiative in the budget that we are proud of, and we will not be changing our position on a day-to-day basis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - depending on where we are speaking in the Province, and to what group, because that is exactly the way the Opposition operates; but not us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week we were all disappointed to hear of the allegations of illegal fishing and misreporting of catches made against some companies and fishermen involved with the fishery in Gaultois. Mr. Speaker, many of us were also disappointed with the reaction of the Minister of Fisheries to the news. He said that we were just as bad as the foreigners, and he could not see how he would be able to fight the foreign overfishing campaign.

Mr. Speaker, where abuse of the fishery and the breaking of rules takes place, there is no room for tolerance, no matter who it is. So, why didn't the minister take the opportunity last week to demand similar action by the federal government against the foreign fishermen who are, day in and day out, abusing the rules, exceeding quotas, fishing with undersized gear, and generally disregarding the regulations outside the 200-mile limit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member opposite knows, this side of the floor has been fighting that foreign overfishing campaign and any opportunity that I get to speak to the federal minister or any minister in the federal government, I bring the issue of foreign overfishing to them.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the allegations or the charges that were laid last week: yes, indeed it was embarrassing; yes, these allegations are true. We were out there trying to convince the rest of Canada and the rest of the world that overfishing practices cannot continue outside, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, when it is happening, if the allegations are true, on the inside. I would expect the federal minister to treat those individuals from Canada the same way as he should be treating those outside of our 200-mile limit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult enough to get the federal government to take action against foreign overfishing on any day. Instead of hanging his head in shame, why doesn't the minister show some leadership? Why doesn't he point out the fact that an investigation has uncovered serious allegations? Why doesn't he point out that charges have been laid? Why doesn't he point out that the difference between foreigners and us, is that we prosecute the people who break our fisheries regulations? Why doesn't he demand the same action by the federal government, outside the 200-mile limit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, any infractions outside of our 200-mile limit are supposed to be looked after by the NAFO country which the offending party is from. But, Mr. Speaker, we know and we have been saying over and over and over again that something needs to be done with the NAFO members off our coasts who are doing these infractions, Mr. Speaker, and who are overfishing their quotas, misreporting their catches. We have constantly, for the past thirteen years, said that the federal government must do something with those foreign nations who are not living by the rules on the Nose and the Tail and on the Flemish Cap.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, why did the minister say, on Friday past, that he cannot see the difference between the foreign fishery and the Canadian fishery? Does he need to be reminded of the Russian trawler, Tynda, which was in Bay Roberts approximately two weeks ago, and the cargo manifest that was on-board? Why doesn't he point that out, that in Gaultois charges have been laid, while in Bay Roberts the Russian trawler, Tynda, sailed away with the federal minister commenting that no rules had been broken. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. Wouldn't the minister agree that the difference between the Canadian fishery and the foreign fishery is that we charge, we prosecute, we suspend licenses, we levy fines and we take quotas?

I want to ask the minister today: Will he stop providing the federal government with excuses for inaction, and will he demand rigorous enforcement against foreign fleets outside the 200?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the hon. member opposite, day after day, stands in this House and criticizes and attacks me for what is happening on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. No one on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, agrees with what is happening on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks, and time and time again we have gone to the federal government and asked them to take action on that issue, and we will continue to do so, with or without the co-operation of the members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Minister, I don't need to tell you or anyone in this House today the importance of tourism as an economic generator in our Province. The Bonavista Peninsula has made great strides in tourism, and is probably one of the most visited areas of this Province. One location that has generated a lot of interest is the movie site of Random Passage located at White Point in Trinity Bay. Over 6,000 people visited that particular site last year with the expectation of 15,000 to come forward to the site this tourism season.

I ask the minister, if she is aware of problems being encountered by the Cape Random Trust, to allow the continuing operation of this site as a major tourism attraction on the Bonavista Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the difficulties that are being experienced by the trust foundation in trying to deal with this issue. My officials are working very, very closely, both with the trust group itself and with the private landowners, who actually own the site, in order to try and bring about a resolution to this. Discussion has been taking place now for some considerable time. I do believe that they are making progress in this area, but they are continuing to work towards a resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, the area that is being questioned and the area of concern is not the area that some private individual tends to claim. It is outside that site altogether. Minister, it is my understanding that this popular movie site with infrastructure valued at over $500,000 might be dismantled and lost forever as a tourism attraction, if your government doesn't provide intervention to allow the Cape Random Trust to use the land at White Point for public benefit.

I ask the minister, if she would commit today to do the right thing, provide the support needed to allow this popular movie location to benefit rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and not be destroyed as is now the alternative?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the land ownership in the area of the film site has claims on it by private owners. The King family, a Mr. Reginald King in particular, has put forward a claim to this area, and I understand that there are other claims as well that are being brought forward. As such, all we can do, as a government, is help to work with all of the parties involved here to try and see if there is a way they can work together in order to protect the infrastructure that is there which has some tourism value. I think everybody recognizes that it has tourism value, particularly for the next few years, while this particular production is so topical and so much in the minds of people who have seen it and been so impressed by it.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, our efforts are to try and ensure that the parties can come together so that the site can continue to be part of the tourism products that are available when people go to this area, but respecting the fact that there is private land involved here and private ownership as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister again, that the piece of land, as claimed by some private individual, is not what I am questioning you about here today. In my conversation with the Cape Random Trust committee, they are saying that the majority of the land is outside that area. The tourism season is only a month away. Will the minister commit today to allow the rest of that land to operate and be available for the tourists who are about to visit this Province in this tourism season?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in conversations I have had with my officials on this matter, as recent as Friday, what I have been told is that the main area that is causing the difficulty is the area that is privately owned. Now, if there is something contrary to that I will have to take it under advisement and find out what the issue is; but, in all of the information I have been provided and I know in all of the discussions that have been taking place between my officials and this same trust, the issue has been the private ownership of the land on which, I believe, Mr. King has made claim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

We have, supposedly in this Province, free education from the K-12 level, yet parents in this Province are expected to contribute an estimated $3.6 million by way of school fees for material costs. I want to ask the Minister of Education: Is she prepared to announce now and make the commitment that in the fall, next fall when the children go to school in this Province, the parents will not be asked to pay this $3.6 million, in an individual amount, Mr. Speaker, where many, many parents cannot afford to pay that much money to send this kids to school in a supposedly free system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight, this government does not charge our parents school fees. In fact, we have put more money into the educational system of this Province than any other province -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're taking it away from (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: It would be really nice, Mr. Speaker, to be able to give an answer without the Opposition trying to make a point.

Mr. Speaker, let me start again. This government does not expect parents to pay school fees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: If you look at the amount of money that we put into education in this Province, per student it is $6,343. Mr. Speaker, that is more than any of the Atlantic Provinces in this country. We recognize that we have to fund an education system where we can see a quality education system, and we are doing just that. Let me say that we pay all the teacher's salaries. We pay all the student assistant's salaries. We pay for all the maintenance. We pay for everything that goes on in our school system. If parents want to see some programs enhanced, and some of our teachers want to see that from time to time, then school councils have the ability, under the legislation, to charge fees; to work with boards and schools to charge fees. We have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of funding the educational system, I stand here today and say that we fund the educational system in this Province more than our counterparts in the Atlantic Provinces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the government has to make up its mind. Either it is opposed to fees, which it says it does, or it permits them, which it also does. Will this minister acknowledge that we are not talking about extras here, we are talking about basic materials that children are required to use in the schools, that the children and the parents are asked to pay for?

Can the minister not even agree to phase in a payment for these outlawed - or ban the charging of school fees for the K-6 system which will probably cost about $1.5 million for that, and phase in gradually so that there are no more school fees in this Province for any children having to go to school?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, this government is not responsible for charging school fees. We fund the education system in this Province to the tune of over $6,000 per student, recognizing, as well, that we have a declining student enrollment in this Province. We have fewer school buildings in this Province, and, at the same time, we have continued to increase the funding that goes into the education system. Every school board in this Province has seen an increase in funding.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of what it costs to run the education system in this Province, and we do so, and we ensure that we have a quality education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: As I said earlier, we will continue to do that. However, if teachers want to enhance programs, if we know that parents want to do some things extra to make a contribution to the educational system -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS FOOTE: - they are more than welcome to do so, and we would encourage that if they want to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: We are not telling them that there is a school fee system; but, again, I say, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take her seat.

MS FOOTE: - school fees have been around as long as schools have been around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North. There is time for one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

On April 15, the Minister of Health and Community Services indicated in his brief to the Romanow Commission that the feedback he received from the health forums indicated that participants were open to privatization of some services. He then went on to say that some privatization could occur. My question for the minister is: Can he tell this House today what health services he and his department are considering privatizing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my department has no specific plans to privatize any of the services. I am pleased to hear the hon. member today at least rise in his place and report accurately on the presentation that was made to the Romanow Commission; unlike a release which I seen come out of his office last week which in fact said to everyone in the Province that I had appeared before the Romanow Commission and we were going to privatize the health care system in this Province. I would suggest to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the type of games they should be playing, out trying to cause unrest and concern among the people of the Province.

To his question; this government and this department has no plans to privatize health care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

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

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

I was reluctant, and I did not rise during Question Period on a point of order, but on a number of occasions in this House in the last several weeks I have listened intently to what I can only describe as misleading statements made by the Premier vis-á-vis relocation of government services and this party's position. He knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that this party and the Leader of the Opposition are not opposed to government services. What we are opposed to and what we were opposed to is a plan devised on the ninth hole of a golf course, a plan devised without consultation with the public service, and a plan devised where in one hand they said it would cost the people of the Province $5 million when actually it cost them $30 million. That is what we are opposed to, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Notices of Motion

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act."

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Public Service Pensions Act."

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 8)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province. (Bill 7)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Adoption Act." (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair cannot hear the hon. minister. I ask hon. members now to let the minister speak.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance."

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Oh, come on, I have two; the second one here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I am going to have a lot more after this.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Automobile Insurance Act."

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act."

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

MS THISTLE: I ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act." (Bill 11)

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

MR. LANGDON: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act to Amend the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's Act, the Municipalities Act, the Urban and Rural Planning Act." (Bill 17)

A bill, "An Act to Amend the City of St. John's Act." (Bill 18)

A bill, "An Act to Amend the City of St. John's (Loan) Act, 1978." (Bill 19)

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition, and I will read the prayer:

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

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is charging sales tax on its $3 tire recycling fee even though it does not charge sales tax on beverage container recycling; and

WHEREAS we feel it is unfair and unduly costly to consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador to tax the tire recycling fee;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to remove the sales tax on tire recycling, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we estimate that there are approximately 100,000 tires a year recycled or sent to landfills in the Province. That is what the tire recycling program was put in place to address. If we are charging 15 per cent of $3 on 100,000 tires, what you are looking at, Mr. Speaker, is about $45,000 a year. Part of that is the federal HST. We are looking at about $24,000 a year coming to the Province. Some of that will be clawed back as a result of it being a tax in transfer payments. When you look at the cost of implementing this, of ensuring that the taxes are paid, the cost to the public service - Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a big amount of money coming into the provincial coffers here, but what we are talking about is a burden on some of the families in this Province who are struggling to buy groceries every week. What we are talking about is an extra burden on families who are struggling to get by, on the working poor, on single parents.

It is unconscionable that in this Province, with the economy that we have, with some people struggling to get by from week-to-week, that we would put in place a tax on recycling. It is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that we would tax a recycling fee to begin with. When you look at the purpose of tire recycling, or of the beverage container recycling program, or of any recycling program, it would be unconscionable to tax the recyclable fee on beverage containers. Why is it that we are taxing the recycling fee on tires? We are asking the government to remove the tax on the $3 fee on tire recycling because the people of this Province, while many of them agree with the tire recycling program, while we, on this side of the House, have advocated for years for a tire recycling program -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - the tax on the recycling program is unfair. It is unfair. I am proud to present this petition today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present another petition from residents of the Cape Shore area. Most notably the communities of St. Bride's, Cuslett, Branch, Pont Lance, Angel's Cove and Patrick's Cove. Once again, the petition has to do with the condition of the highway, Route 100, between, what we call, Cuslett lookout, over to the community of Branch and Route 100-16, commonly known as Point Lance Road in our area.

I had the opportunity this weekend to travel over this road on several occasions as I attended a couple of functions in my district, and to say that the conditions are deplorable would be an understatement. This road was paved in 1979. Back in 1979 the major part of this road was paved, and it is in some much need of repair. Last year we had the opportunity to receive, I think, a little over three kilometers of recapping and some patchwork.

What concerns me more than that is that this year we are heading into another great tourism season with the Cape St. Mary's Ecology Reserve. We have Targa Newfoundland who are travelling in our area with a major international competition that is coming our way. We have some other major attractions that are coming our way, and we have a road that is deplorable and a road that needs an immense amount of work done with it. The people in the area have decided to put forward this petition today, through me here in the House, to highlight the issue for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, as he sees where he is going to spend his money this year in relation to improvements to the road network in the Province, but to let people know that many people in my area see this road as very unsafe.

We have buses that travel back and forth from the communities of Branch and Pont Lance and travel back and forth to Fatima Academy on a day-to-day basis. You have to swing the wheels over now just to get clear of some of the holes in the road. It is a very dangerous situation when you have a seventy-two passenger bus full of young children and you are trying to navigate around potholes and some heavy, heavy cracks in the pavement throughout this stretch. It is not an immense amount of work, but something that has been left unattended for many years.

We ask that the minister accept this petition from the people in the area to take into consideration the need to have this concern addressed on behalf of the people in the Cape Shore area. There will be more petitions on the way. I have been contacted by all the communities on the Cape Shore, who have told me that they are forwarding petitions, they are forwarding letters, to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and to myself, to make sure that the necessary funding to carry out these needed repairs are brought forward, but also to bring forward the concerns that they have in relation to the safety. Safety is the number one issue, I am sure, of the minister and of everybody here in the House, but indeed for the people who travel that road on a day-to-day basis.

They believe that the issues should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully by bringing these petitions forward, raising the issue here in the House of Assembly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - and asking the minister to accept this petition on their behalf, to hopefully find some dollars to carry out the much-needed repairs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly 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 approximately four kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

And, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a section of road that has been on the go now, with government making feeble attempts to upgrade, reconstruct and pave for the past five years. This is the fifth year. We are only talking about six kilometres of road to begin with.

It started off when the now Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods was the minister and we looked at upgrading and paving the road. The minister came back and said: Look, because of restrictions and because of budget cuts we cannot upgrade and pave that section of road this year, but what we are going to do is, we are going to do like we did on the Burin Peninsula - those were his comments; I remember them very well - this year we will go down in that section of road, we will ditch and we place in culverts. Next year we will go down and we will reconstruct and pave the road.

Those culverts and the ditching have been done now for three years, I say to people opposite, and we are still waiting and we are still begging for one of the main roads leading into Bonavista to be upgraded and paved.

The first year we got approximately, I would say, about 500 feet of pavement, Mr. Speaker. The next year we got 1.9 kilometres. Now we are into another year and there is approximately three to four kilometres of road. The road has already been ditched. The culverts have already been placed in. It has been identified as a priority by the local Works, Services and Transportation depot in Clarenville. They say it is on their list of priorities. The road needs to be upgraded, paved, in order to allow safe transportation of school children to school, and other people who use this road on a daily basis.

It has gotten to the point now, Mr. Speaker, that you almost have to drive in the middle of the road to access and get to the biggest community in my district, Bonavista. You actually have to drive in the centre of road. The edges of the pavement have disappeared. Mr. Speaker, it is gravel now almost into the yellow line on the pavement. What people are asking for is, for this particular section of road, this particular road -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - the main road leading into Bonavista, to be included this year in the capital works budget. They have waited for five years for a small amount of pavement.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is too much to ask for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to present this petition of 4,000 names from my district. The reason I need to ask leave is, in checking with the Deputy Clerk, I understand that the petition ought to be addressed to the House, because, in the prayer of it, it is not addressed to the House. I did meet with a group of constituents on Friday who asked me to present it to the House, and I would like to have leave to present it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of this petition reads:

A Renal Dialysis Unit has once again become a major issue for many concerned groups and individuals from the area serviced by the James Paton Memorial Regional Hospital. This hospital provides medical care services to a catchment area of approximately 50,000 people. Several patients within this area are presently travelling to Grand Falls-Windsor for dialysis treatment. Actually, it is thirteen patients.

The James Paton Memorial Regional Hospital is currently undergoing extensive renovations and expansions. This would be an appropriate time for a dialysis unit to be part of the plan of health care services that are provided by this hospital. We have a strong committed team and our attitude is not that it would be nice to have, we feel strongly that it must be a priority.

We, the undersigned interested parties, are seeking a commitment from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a Renal Dialysis Unit at the James Paton Memorial Regional Hospital, therefore providing a much-needed health care service for our region.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by approximately 4,000 people in the region. I should also add that I am very pleased to be working with the committee who are heading this up. In fact, I met with them on Friday afternoon in my office in Gander. I have also met with the Department of Health and Community Services, as well as the previous Minister and the new Minister of Health.

At the moment, the department is telling me that we are awaiting a report of the provincial dialysis committee and we are expecting this report in the upcoming weeks. We met with the James Paton Memorial Hospital also on this request and they tell me that they are updating their request brief and have identified space.

I should conclude by saying, as the MHA for Gander District, I understand this pressing need because many of the families who have to commute from areas like Fogo Island and New-Wes-Valley and find it very, very difficult to go these long distances are telling me that they would want this to be a priority of this government; and, of course, I will continue to make this request a priority. I look forward to the report of the provincial Renal Dialysis Committee, that we should have within the month.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today, Members of the European Parliament and their officials. They are: Mr. Struan Stevenson, Chair of the United Kingdom Conservative and Unionist Party; Mrs. Elspeth Attwooll, United Kingdom - Liberal Democrat Party; Mr. Ian Stewart Hudghton, United Kingdom - Scottish National Party; and Mr. Michael Topping, Secretariat, along with Parliamentary Assistants: Ms. Catriona Burness, Mr. Michael Hager, Mrs. Lily Hudghton, Ms Ingrid Kelling, and Ms Rikke Kristiansen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of thousands of residents of Labrador. The petition, Mr. Speaker, involves government's decision to take $97 million out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund and use it for general revenue.

Mr. Speaker, people in Labrador are not satisfied with the minister's statement on Budget day, that $97 million will be taken from them and in return they will get a promise that $102 million will be spent to put a road through Labrador during the next six years. Nobody in Labrador believes that, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think that government themselves believe that they are going to have the ability to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the road network that is in Labrador at the present time - this pool of money could have been used, and has been used in the past, to maintain the existing road structures that are presently in place. It is a gravel road from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and down through the South Coast and The Straits. That road, Mr. Speaker, is going to be in continuous need of repair. As one section is upgraded, the other sections are falling down. We do not believe for a minute that this government will have the money, even though they say that they will spend money in Labrador putting a road through even at the expense of the Island portion of the Province not having any work done, when they do not have the ability to do what is required on the Island portion of the Province at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, prior to government's decision to take this money, this $97 million, prior to that we had our pool and that money could have been used for road construction in Labrador. It could have been enough to complete Phase III from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Cartwright. It could have been used to do all of the upgrading that is need on a continuous basis, but when this money is gone, Mr. Speaker, as it is government's intention to do, then we are going to be left without any money whatsoever, not only to construct Phase III, but to do the necessary repairs that are required on an ongoing basis.

There are many people today, Mr. Speaker, who depend upon that highway to make a livelihood, to transport goods. People in other areas of Labrador need that highway to get goods at a decent price, rather than paying much higher services in order to get their goods delivered, and the general public as well. Right now, Mr. Speaker, there are sections of that road that are a danger to the safety of the travelling public, let alone the people who are using it to make a livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned, the people in Labrador are very concerned, that once government removes this $97 million, then all they are going to receive in return is an empty promise to do something that we all know they will not have the ability to deliver.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am certainly pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and make some comments and ask some questions on the Office of the Executive Council and, more importantly, to raise some vital issues that I believe need to be raised here in the House, and not only in the House but indeed throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to start off some of my concerns on the Strategic Social Plan, subhead 2.6.01., in the Estimates.

Certainly, some efforts have been put forward by the members opposite in relation to providing the Strategic Social Plan, and not only the Strategic Social Plan, Mr. Chair -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, (inaudible) we get the procedure right. It was my understanding that we taking each of these items in turn, that we had not completed Intergovernmental Affairs, and that the hon. gentleman is now on to the Strategic Social Plan. We do not mind going on to the Strategic Social Plan, but I thought that when we finished the other day we were on to the Intergovernmental Affairs and had not finished that particular one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Government House Leader, we have done what he has indicated in debate and we have also let it go a little bit wider in terms of the depth of debate under the entire Executive Council heading. I guess, for the benefit of all members, we will conclude with Executive Council Estimates debate today. I think we have two hours and eight minutes left. If members wish to jump around, if that would be okay, if the Government House Leader and members opposite are in agreement with that, then we can provide a little more latitude in terms of the debate and let members go where they are. At the end today's sitting, then, we will conclude and move forward in terms of all of the subheadings and subheads under the Executive Council section of the Budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, if that is the way the Opposition wants to do it, that is fine.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank both House Leaders for straightening that up.

Mr. Chair, again I want to touch on, if I could, the Strategic Social Plan. I believe, as a member here in the House, that the Strategic Social Plan is something that has, certainly, been discussed in this Province for many, many years now, and something that I think needs to continue to be discussed. There are many people in our Province, Mr. Chair, who are certainly concerned with the social aspect of government and what it intends to do for the people of the Province, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the concerns that are raised here.

In the Estimates, Mr. Chair - I would just like to throw out a few questions, if I could, first, just to get the debate started.

Under Salaries on 2.6.01.01., Strategic Social Plan, I will deal with the Minister of -

CHAIR: Human Resources.

MR. MANNING: Human Resources and Employment. Okay, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Or Health.

MR. MANNING: Okay, I will deal with the Minister of Health on these.

Mr. Chair, we had a budgeted amount last year of $832,700, we see an increase up to $866,900, and this year we have budgeted $1,014,200. I wonder if the minister could touch on those, because there seems to be a discrepancy not only in last year's amount, but a fair amount of an increase this year. I am just wondering what that increase would be associated with. Are there going to be more people involved in the Strategic Social Plan, the delivery of it, the administration of it or whatever the case may be? Maybe the minister can enlighten us on that.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, in terms of the figures that the member references, there was some delay in getting some of the positions in place, some of the planners that we have in the regions. Right now we have all the regions up and running. As the hon. member would know, they didn't all come on stream at the same time. At the present time we have the Strategic Social Plan on a regional basis. There are six separate regions in the Province. Each region has a planner, a person attached to that region. So, there would have been a delay getting some of these positions in place.

Right now, all of the regions are up and running, the planners are in place and, in addition to that, we also have a portion through the Newfoundland Stats Agency which is working on the social audit. So there are some individuals who are involved in that as well. Some of that is contracted out.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On 2.6.01.03, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister: We had budgeted last year $509,000, we revised that budget to $330,200, on Transportation and Communications, and this year the budget is $310,000. It is almost in line with last year's budget, but it is considerably less than what was budgeted last year. I am just wondering if the minister could enlighten us on that also.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, in line with what I had mentioned earlier, as we were going through the process of getting the regional committees up and running, there was additional travel that was required from the base unit here in St. John's. Some of our staff would have to travel out to the regions helping to get things set up. Now that we have the regions up and running, with a planner in each region, there will be less need for hands-on from the base unit level, although we will still obviously maintain that contact and liaison. That is where that would come in. There would be less need for that in terms of the travel required.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Down to 06., Purchased Services, I say to the minister, we have budgeted last year $40,000 and we see an increase up to $210,200. That is a little over five times the amount budgeted, Mr. Chair. This year we have a budget amount of $95,200. It seems to be a fair amount of increase there in last year's budget and over double the amount for this year's budget. I was just wondering if the minister could enlighten us on that, please.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chair, again with that particular item, this involves a fair amount of the work that is ongoing in terms of the social audit. The hon. member would be aware that a very important piece of the work that is accompanying the Strategic Social Plan and that we are hoping to begin to roll out in this year, I think that once it does roll out, it is a piece of work that all of us in this House and certainly this Province will be able to take great pride in because it is a piece of work in which we are leading the Province. So, that reference is primarily that particular area.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly on the Strategic Social Plan, and I am fully aware of it in my district, I have attended a couple of the meetings of the people who have been involved in that in my district, Mr. Chair, there seems to be some concerns being raised with a couple of issues. I certainly would like to have the opportunity to discuss those here today and maybe get some enlightenment from the minister on those.

Certainly, one of the major issues that has been raised with me, Mr. Chair, is the fact of the ABE Program, and it is in three different levels here in the Province: Levels I, II and III. I had an instance in my district where a person wanted to be a mechanic. He had an opportunity to get a job as a mechanic in a part of the Province, on the Shore and anywhere that he wanted to get a job, but the fact is that he had finished his education level at the secondary level at Grade 10, in fact, a number of years ago, and in order to be able to partake in the mechanic program at the College of the North Atlantic, he had to upgrade his skills to be allowed to be admitted and had to have more than what he already had, Mr. Chair. In doing that, he found out that the ABE Program, Adult Basic Education Program, is in three different levels and that he could not get funding for Level I. He could get funding for Levels II and III, if he needed that, but he could not get funding for Level I. Therefore, he could not make the first step forward in order to become a mechanic for the simple reason that he could not get funding from either level of government at the time because of the way it was set up.

My understanding is - and I ask the minister, if he has the opportunity in a few moments, to respond. I ask the minister to explain to me, and I am sure to all members of the House, if you are not allowed or not permitted or if you do not get the opportunity to receive funding to do step one, it is very difficult to move up the ladder to step two and three where you get funding. I think, from what I can understand in my own district, there are several people who are caught in this trap of having that year there where they receive no funding.

In this particular situation, the man I am speaking about was a married man with a couple of children. The expense of going and partaking in the program was just a bit too much for his household budget at the time, and he required some assistance. He was not on any other type of government assistance at the time, but the problem was, he could not get to first base.

I would like to ask the minister, if he could, to enlighten us on the ABE Program itself, the breakdown of Levels I, II and III, and why government does not fund the Level I program, because I believe it is leaving a lot of people out in the dark. Maybe the minister will get an opportunity to explain what he can on that program, please.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to tell the hon. member that I cannot provide him with detail with regard to the particular issue that he raised, but I think the point that the hon. gentleman is making is very relevant to us in this House, especially any members who have not had the opportunity to work closely with the SSP concept.

The issue that the hon. member raises is illustrative of the type of work that the SSP units are doing. The Social Policy Committee of Cabinet travelled the Province extensively this fall and met with five of the regional committees. We have one left to do and that is the one in the western region. Everywhere we went, these were the kinds of issues that were raised. They are very valid issues, as the hon. member points out, and they ask very valid questions.

I do not see my colleague, the Minister of Education, here, but she would perhaps be in the best position to speak to the particulars of that particular question. The importance of what the hon. member raises is that the way the SSP operates, and the way the regional committees work - I tell you, if you have the opportunity in your region to sit in with the committee and watch them in action, it is really impressive because you really have a collection there of all of the decision makers in a particular region. They come from economic development, they come from education, they come from all of the varied backgrounds, and they sit down. What is so impressive is the fact that they are able to sit around the table and leave their own differences behind when they come through the door, and work collectively in trying to identify and deal with issues.

The issue that the hon. member raised was, in fact, raised when we were out in his area, and the chair of their committee made an excellent presentation to us in outlining some of the issues that are of concern in that particular area.

Everywhere we have gone has been the same sort of thing. Some of the issues that are identified are peculiar to particular regions of the Province; some of them are broad-based in that there are similar things that people are encountering elsewhere in the Province; but, in all cases, they are very, very relevant, very, very valid, and these are issues that the members of the committees are trying to move forward, and the various government departments will be working with them to try to resolve the issues that are being identified and brought forward.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe the minister would try to get some information on the ABE Program from the Minister of Education afterwards, if you could, to enlighten us.

I certainly compliment those people who are involved in the Strategic Social Plan, especially the people in our local area who have put forward their concerns. I am quite familiar with the chair in our own area, Mr. Chair, and I would say that -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader, he is learning

It is a very important issue and we had the opportunity, myself and a couple of my colleagues on this side of the House, to travel to different parts of the Province, to partake in our own social policy meetings and to receive presentations from people in different parts of the Province.

Certainly, the ABE program is an important aspect of social policy in this Province. I believe that we, as legislators here, have to try to do whatever we can to make sure - whether it is working with the federal government for funding on that and some (inaudible) cost-shared agreement to address the illiteracy problem in our Province, to get an opportunity for those who may need any level of ABE, Mr. Chairman, any level of Adult Basic Education, should be given the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Chairman, that leads me into another topic that falls directly under the Strategic Social Plan, and that has to do with illiteracy in the Province; and definitely an opportunity here maybe to ask the minister a couple of questions on that. From my understanding, the Department of Education carried out a strategic literacy plan a couple of years ago. Again, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the minister questions on what he can and cannot answer. There seems to be, from what I understand, a lot of the issues that were raised under the strategic literacy plan and the study that was done, Mr. Chairman, a lot of these issues are not being followed up on and addressed. I am just wondering, is it a lack of funding that is causing that? We have an incredible amount - upwards around the 40 per cent bracket - of people in the Avalon area, that I am aware of, who did not have the opportunity to complete high school.

We seen a few years ago, under the fisheries retraining program, where much emphasis was put on Adult Basic Education. I know throughout my own district there were several places which were involved in Adult Basic Education, to give people an opportunity to have at least a solid foundation to take them into some type of post-secondary education, whatever field they chose. It seems, again, to be a concern out there among people that even though we have some heavy illiteracy percentages in this Province - I am just wondering if the minister could tell me today, on the total budget for the Strategic Social Plan, how much is spent? Does he have any idea how much is spent in administration versus how much really goes out into the community? It seems like, not only with this program, Mr. Chairman, but indeed, most government programs, in situations that we find - we find the same problems in the Department of Education. I am sure that many members understand that there is a fair amount of money - we hear ministers time and time again say: we are putting more money into education. We are putting more money into health. We are putting more money into different social programs that we have. I am just wondering - the concern is and I guess it has been there in the past and continues to be, is that much of this new funding, much of this additional funding gets caught up in administration and does not necessarily filter down to the classroom in certain situations or into the front lines of health care or whatever the case may be.

From a Strategic Social Plan - I see the budgeted amount under Strategic Social Plan - the total budget is $2 million. Over $1 million of the $2 million, from what I am reading here now, is going to be spent in salaries. Now, I know there are other projects and community initiatives that the government does which equal more than $2 million. On the budget here, under Executive Council, the Strategic Social Plan, the $2 million budget has over 50 per cent of that in Salaries. I am just wondering, minister, if you could tell us about the programs or give us some enlightenment on what really is going out into the community? I understand the studies. I understand the meetings that are happening throughout the Province. I have attended some myself. I understand that the plan needs to be put in place but people are out there wondering how much is getting caught up and how much is getting used in administration verses what is filtering down into communities, filtering down into where the need is, filtering down into the schools or the hospitals whatever the case may be, but just on Strategic Social Plan itself, from that aspect, how much of the $2 million - we know what is being spent in Salaries, but how much is being spent on other community initiatives? How much is being spent on other community projects to make sure that the Strategic Social Plan has some teeth? Mr. Chairman, I will just leave that for the minister to enlighten us on.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, in terms of the broader question that the hon. member raises with regard to the administrative costs of the program; he will realize, and the other hon. members of this House, is that the Strategic Social Plan has a very defined role to play in terms of - and while $2 million is a significant amount of money, I guess, in relative terms, and we are talking about budgets within government, $2 million is a relatively small amount in terms of what we deal with in this House. So, the $1 million-plus or a little over 50 per cent going into administration because basically, what the SSP does is more of a coordination within government in terms of the various departments. As a matter of fact, the money that has been made available for specific projects during the time that the SSP has operated have been primarily for what has been referred to as demonstration projects. It has been very clearly earmarked and designed for very specific purposes. For example, one of the things that comes to mind is regional committees wanting to do something along the line of volunteerism. So we have made money available to that.

Also, I note in my own area of the Province in terms of dealing with youth issues, there is money available for that. I guess the idea behind the SSP is not so much to be a funding agency in terms of providing these additional funds to the various groups that are out there but I guess the role that it can play is help these groups identify where they might go to access some of the funding that they require.

One of the other things that I should mention as well, one of the features of the SSP is an advisory council. It is referred to as a Premier's Council which is made up of very prominent citizens of this Province who come in from varied backgrounds, varied political persuasion and their idea is everything that government does or the plan is, and we are gradually moving toward that, is vetted through this council. We get the opportunity of having these people with their broad backgrounds to be able to look at - for example, I know when I was Minister of Human Resources and Employment and we were moving forward with the review of legislation, the document that we had we bounced it off this council to get some sense from them as to what they thought it would be doing. This is happening with other departments as well.

If I could, to the literacy issue that the hon. member raises - and this is very relevant, I guess, it is an issue that is near and dear to me because in my previous life prior to politics I was an educator. While I worked in the primary-elementary system, I did have the opportunity to have been involved in an initiative that in our area of the Province has gone on to receive international recognition. It started out as an initiative that was related to, or restricted to, my area of Port au Port, but has since gone on to encompass the whole of the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland, primarily within the boundaries of the District # 4 school board.

This initiative is basically that. It is geared towards all levels of literacy. For example, when we started out, our initial venture was in the area of preschool. To put it in context for hon. members in terms of when you are talking literacy and trying to understand how broad based the challenges are, our committee, the work that we did in our area, was prompted initially by the fact that we have a very high, an exceptionally high, dropout rate in the school system in which I was employed. When we sat down as a group to look at it and try to strategize as to how we could change that or improve that, the realization quickly arose that really there was no point to start at the high school level where the problem was manifesting itself. Really, you had to backtrack much further and start very early on.

Our very first initiative, trying to deal with that particular thing, resulted in the initiation of preschool programs in the area. As a matter of fact, we ended up having universal preschools in the area of the Province that I was living in and working in at that time so that all children - what it amounted to is basically a junior kindergarten so that our children were entering school a year earlier, trying to level the playing field and given the opportunity to compete.

Mr. Chair, reflecting back on it, I certainly take advantage of the opportunity to still work closely with that group, which has certainly grown far beyond what we originally had envisioned. As I said, it has now become a model for not only this Province, but it is certainly recognized nationally and internationally.

I guess I raise it here because it does underline the very important issue that the hon. member is referencing and that deals with the whole area of literacy. I agree with him that we have to do everything we can to try to make sure that opportunities are made available to the people of this Province, regardless of your age, regardless of your status in life, or where you find yourself, that you have the opportunity to improve your literacy skills at any given time. As a result, people, whether they are school dropouts or whether they are people who were forced to - or for whatever reasons - find themselves in situations that they were not able to complete their education, or in some cases we have to acknowledge as well that there are certainly documented cases of people who have gone through the school system only to find themselves out in the workforce, sometimes, regrettably, not having the literacy skills necessary to do the work in which they presently find themselves involved.

These are issues that are certainly near and dear to me and they are certainly issues that are of paramount importance to the people of this Province. The hon. member certainly raises a very relevant issue. I guess the role of the SSP - and this is where the SSP can be so important because it does such a valuable service not only in identifying these concerns, and identifying that there is a need in this area, but also becoming the champion, to have that group out there champion on behalf of literacy, and saying that this has to be a priority for our area because, first and foremost, if we are to move forward in a lot of our areas we must first and foremost become educated.

I agree with the hon. member's perception, or summary, of the issues that are there in terms of what is happening at the regional levels. I acknowledge that we have a ways to go, but certainly we acknowledge and recognize that they are important and we will continue to work to move the agenda forward.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly welcome the minister's comments on the importance of literacy development in the Province, and it is certainly something that I am sure all members of the House agree on. My concern goes back to the fact, again, of how many of the dollars that we budget in this Province go into administration of these programs or administration of developing these programs. Just as an example, I touched on the heading in the Estimates, the Strategic Social Plan, of a $2 million budget with 50 per cent in salaries.

If the minister would just turn back a couple of pages, we have 2.2.05., Advisory Councils on Economic and Social Policy, and we have $210,400 in salaries over here for this coming year, Mr. Chair. You go back to Economic and Social Policy Analysis under the Cabinet Secretariat, 2.2.02., and we have another $406,300 in Salaries again, all in the support of economic and social policy committees.

I realize that we have to have people involved in the delivery of these programs, and certainly the implementation of these programs, but I am just wondering once again because what I have found, and I do not think I am unique in the House, is there is much concern out there in the Province about how much is going into administration of these organizations, of the people involved at the departmental level. I realize, as an example, we talk about literacy development. It has come to my attention in a couple of schools, Mr. Chair, that they are facing some cutbacks in regard to student assistants this year, in regard to the budgets they have received. These people, in most cases, are at a disadvantage than other children in the school. Where some child may need ten minutes, some of the children who require the assistance of student assistants need an hour maybe.

I know of a couple of instances, myself, that I am quite familiar with: that if the student assistant is not going to be in her place, or in his place, whatever the case may be, this coming September, it is going to be a major disadvantage to these children who are part of that program.

I think, as the minister touched on a few moments ago, and I was very pleased to hear him say so, I think we all realize the improvements to our literacy development here in the Province start at the lowest level that we can get it at. If that is kindergarten or preschool, whatever the case may be, then that is where we need to spend the dollars. When we get further up the line, in high school, it may be too late in some cases to do that, so it is important there.

I just wanted a point of clarification, maybe from the minister once again, on literacy development in the schools themselves. Are we putting the onus on the school boards to implement those through the administration of the school, or does government have some intervention to ensure that the literacy programs, the literacy development, especially for those, as I said, who are less advantaged than others, especially those who require the assistance of student assistants, are we giving the opportunity or are we making sure that those programs are put in place and are implemented at the school level?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, to the hon. member, unfortunately I cannot speak in detail in terms of the specifics of that because the issue that he raises is a little broader than the context of the SSP, and he has acknowledged that. I guess in terms of literacy generally, and certainly from the point of view of the involvement of the SSP, literacy can be delivered in a number of ways. There is no question that when you reference the regular school system and that falls under my colleague, the Minister of Education, I am sure she can provide you with all the detail that you would need there with regard to programs like student assistants or whatever.

In terms of literacy generally, it can be delivered in any number of ways, and there are number of agencies that would be involved. I reference the fact that in my own area the community education network is doing an excellent job, and we have others throughout the Province. Here, in the City of St. John's, we have a number of excellent centres that have been established and set up dealing with, primarily, adult literacy. All of these, in their own way, are doing an excellent job; so, there is no one model. I guess what we have is a number of organizations, a number of groups who are addressing this broad-based challenge to all of us. We recognize and acknowledge that it is something that we must be focused on. It is something that we must try to address, and I do feel that we have been making some strides; and, certainly in terms of the plan that has been developed, I am sure that we will continue to move that particular agenda forward.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the Strategic Social Plan, I would like to ask the minister: As you have said, your own committee of Cabinet has travelled across the Province and has met with, I think, five of the six committees, with one more to meet. From a strategic point of view, some of the issues that I have raised here today and have been raised in my area are issues, I am sure, you have heard across the Province. I am just wondering, from a point of view of implementing the plan itself, is there going to be a uniform policy across the Province, or are you going to look at different areas of the Province and look at funding some of the different needs that are in different parts of the Province? Or is your department, I guess, hoping to bring in a uniform policy across Newfoundland and Labrador to address some of the issues that have been raised through your meetings and through the consultations that the different regions are having throughout Newfoundland and Labrador?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the question, I guess the two ways that come to mind that we are approaching, certainly there will be situations, and there are situations I am aware of, where issues arise that are peculiar to a certain region, so they will only require a reaction or an action to deal with the problem in that area. If it is something that has a broad-base application throughout the Province, it certainly has implications there as well.

I should also point out to the hon. member, and to hon. members in this House, that the system works both ways as well. I am aware of a situation where a particular problem arose in a region and it did not come through the SSP. It was a problem that came to light in a particular area of the Province and, in my capacity then as Minister of HR&E, I talked with my Cabinet colleagues and what we decided to do was ask the SSP Regional Committee to actually take that on as a project in their area and see if they could come forward with a resolution that they could offer us, that we could then look to implement. So it works both ways. It can be on a regional basis. I am sure, undoubtedly, there will be situations and things will come up that will require us adopting one particular policy for the Province. In those cases we will do just that.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I will question the minister on training - if we could step back there for a moment. We have industries in the Province that, hopefully, will be starting - and more importantly, I guess, in my end of the world - in the Voisey's Bay development. I ask the minister, from a training prospective: Have you looked at some of the trades, some of the things that may be needed with a development of that nature? My understanding is that some of the trades that may be needed are not even available here in the Province. I am wondering - again from a social plan, because we would not want any development to happen and not have our own people trained to do the type of work that may be required. I think it would be a sad commentary - after listening for the past four or five years the possibility of any development - to have a situation where a project such as Voisey's Bay, or anything else, announced and find that maybe 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the requirements that would be needed to find work in that development may not be available here, or the training itself may not be available here, not necessarily the people who would have the opportunity to avail of the employment opportunities, but that the training itself would not be here.

I am just wondering - again, from a strategic point of view - has your government looked at the requirements for that particular project? What have you done to address the need to ensure that the opportunities will be there for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to participate in, especially the people of my own district of Placentia & St. Mary's?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, an appropriate question. I say to the hon. member, in fact, government has been very proactive in this area. We have been, for some time, actively working at developing a labour market development strategy which has involved a number of departments of government looking at those very issues, trying to look at the reality as we see it today, trying to extrapolate as to where the labour market needs are going to be; looking one, two, three, four, or five years out.

Also, the hon. member would be pleased to know - I am sure he is already aware - that this government has also put in place a Labour Market Development Council which is comprised of representatives from labour, business, and government departments. This is a group that operates separate from government. Their primary role is to advise government as to where we need to be looking in terms of training and where the particular needs are going to be, what skill sets are going to be required, looking out - as the hon. member mentions, obviously he has a particular interest in his own area with regard to an impending development and the implications that it will have for his area, and that is very valid. Certainly, as a government, we have to be prepared for that because when opportunities do present themselves we have to make sure that we are in a position that we can maximize on these. In fact, with the two things that I have just referenced: we are aware of this and we are working on this particular issue.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just wondering if the minister, or maybe some other minister - under the Strategic Literacy Plan; there is a Strategic Literacy Plan carried out by the Department of Education, I understand. I am just wondering if the minister would enlighten us on the progress of the plan, the implementation of the plan. I have had some questions asked to me, in my own district, concerning that. Maybe I will get some other questions from your comments; but if the minister would be so kind as to maybe just enlighten the House on the Strategic Literacy Plan and what is happening with that at the present time.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Let me thank the member for his questions about the Strategic Literacy Plan and for his interest in it. It is an issue that is of great concern, I think, for all of us when we look at the rate of illiteracy in our Province and how we are going to address that issue.

I have to say, as well, that we are no different than any other province in the country. We are all taking steps to try and improve the rate of literacy in our Province. This is why this government is very proud that we, in fact, have a Strategic Literacy Plan which has received great compliments from across the country. We are very pleased about that, that they recognize that we are trying to do things and trying to do them as expeditiously as we can.

The plan itself certainly looks at where we are as a Province and how best to go forward to deal with the issue of illiteracy. One of the issues we have, and the member opposite mentioned it, in fact, when you talk about Level I, Level II and Level III. We are very pleased that the College of the North Atlantic has, in fact, taken on responsibility, where they can, for delivering Levels II and III. In fact, some of the campuses across the Province have been very accommodating and, where they can, have taken in Level I students, recognizing that if they are able to work with them to bring them from Level I to Level II - it just takes a little bit of time to do that and then they bring them onstream. They have them in as Level II and on to Level III.

Of course, the good thing about having them involved with the College of the North Atlantic is that they do not do this in isolation. They look at working with our people to try and increase their literacy skills but also look at how best they can take them forward in terms of looking at employment opportunities. So it is a very good environment for us to be delivering Levels II and III because we do it again in concert with - not just making sure that they come up to scratch in terms of literacy skills, but what about employment prospects? What about taking them further so that they can become productive members of society and have a lot of confidence in their own abilities? The College of the North Atlantic is a good environment in which to do that .

One of the issues we have still, that we are grappling with, is Level I. I do know that there is some, I guess, discussion around a report that was done looking at the delivery of Level I in the Province. That is being offered through different entities now - Rabbittown, for instance, is one of the areas where we are offering Level I. There were still a lot of concerns that it is not being offered in as many areas as we would like to see it offered throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We had a report done looking at the services that are being offered. In fact, it was a Goss Gilroy report. That report came in and we shared with all of the stakeholders, those concerned about the delivery of literacy programs in the Province. There were some concerns with the recommendations contained in the report because, I guess, the authors of the report, when they were doing the research, were asked to look at how we could deliver more effectively and efficiently the same service, working with the resources that we have available to us. The recommendations that came back didn't exactly meet with favour with all of the stakeholders. I know it is hard to please everyone anyway, but I think there was sufficient enough concern that we undertook to involve the stakeholders in looking at the Goss Gilroy report, and maybe coming forward with their own recommendations on how best to proceed. That is looking at Level I, and we recognize that there is an issue there.

You will recall that a couple of years ago both levels of government, the federal and the provincial governments, each put $1 million into a foundation, the interest of which was to be used to deliver literacy programs throughout the Province. We have been able to realize some of that, but still we are now looking at trying to increase that amount of money and trying to involve the private sector as well. We recognize that we need more than what we have available to us at this time, to do what we need to do with literacy programs.

In terms of the Strategic Literacy Plan, we are working with all of the stakeholders in literacy in the Province, and, of course, there are so many things happening, more than which I have knowledge of. In fact, I have asked for a list of all of the literacy programs that are being delivered in this Province to see if we can probably look at doing it in a more efficient and effective way. That is, again, coming out of the Strategic Literacy Plan, as something that we should be doing.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly thank the minister for enlightening us on that. Certainly, as I thought, it would draw out a few questions.

I spoke to the Minister of Health earlier concerning the development, I guess, or the implementation of literacy programs at the youngest level possible. I have had a concern raised with me in the past few weeks of the possibility of some cutbacks - I will use the word cutbacks - and some reductions in student assistants in some of the schools in my district. I know of one particular situation and I know of several others also, but there is a major concern with some of the parents there. We all, I guess, over the past number of years have seen a mainstreaming of students into the regular classroom wherever possible, socially and everything else, and it is great. We all understand that. But at the same time, we have to understand that there is a need, I guess, certainly from a reading and other work that is done at the school level - student assistants have proven in many, many cases to be very helpful in their roles at that level.

I am just wondering, Minister, if you could just give some word of optimism to the parents who are out there, the several who have raised it with me in my district, and others, of the continuation of the role of student assistants, and the fact that the requirements - I am not, to be honest with you, 100 per cent sure exactly what you need to have a student assistant in place. Maybe you can give us some thoughts on that very important issue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I again I thank the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's for his question and for his interest in this issue.

Just to speak to the whole issue around student assistants, and the need for them in the school system, I can tell you that there no intention by this government to remove student assistants from the system. I think, as you point out, the objective of this government and others has been to integrate our students wherever possible, students with special needs into the regular classroom stream. Having said that, of course, that is always open for debate and parents have their own views on how much integration should take place. Some will say they should be totally integrated and have the supports in the classrooms. Others will say, depending on the level of disability, the child should be in a special needs environment. So, we are trying to work with both viewpoints and I think we are doing a good job of that.

One of the issues, I think, when you talk about student assistants, and how a student would be entitled to a student assistant, I guess you have to look at a program we have in place called Pathways. I am not sure if you are familiar with that. That, in fact, looks at students, particularly students with special needs, whether they are of a minor nature or a severe or medium nature. It looks at individual student needs, working with the parents, working with the supports at the school, working with the health care system, working with the Department of Human Resources and Employment. They all come together to see how we can best deliver education to our children. Then they will have their own, what we call an ISSSP team who will work with them and especially with the parents to make sure the supports of the child's needs are in fact put in place to ensure that the child will indeed get a quality education.

Having said that, sometimes what happens is that you could have a classroom where you would have one child who requires the support of a student assistant; but that does not mean, if you had two children in that classroom, that you could not use the one student assistant to support two children. The problem comes, of course - they are called student assistants, and maybe that was a mistake. Maybe they should have been called teacher assistants, as has happened in other provinces, because the minute that you suggest to a parent in some cases that you now have to share that student assistant, then that becomes an issue because they think: No, it is the student assistant of my child. That is not what it was intended to be. It was meant to be support in the classroom for a student, whether or not there was one student, two or three, depending on again the nature of the problem.

I have to tell you that when I speak to my colleagues across the country and look at the need for special services in our education system, this Province probably spends more per student based upon our ability to pay, but we are looking at - we spend over $70 million in our system on an annual basis on special needs. In terms of student assistants, categorical teachers, special education teachers, guidance counsellors, all of the supports that are in place to support our children who need them, this Province has done very well.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as a follow-up to something that the minister mentioned earlier, and certainly it is a major issue in the Province that I talked about with the Minister of Health in relation to Level I, the suggestion was made, if I understand correctly from the minister, you are looking at ways of bringing forward Level I and implementing Level I into the Province.

Somebody raised an issue with me a short while ago concerning the fact of the locations of Level I, and the minister again touched on Rabbit Town, but many parts of rural Newfoundland, I am sure the minister is fully aware, have difficulty in travelling, and the transportation involved in getting to somewhere where Level I would be offered. I would like to ask the minister: Has there been any consideration, which was raised to me, in relation to finding some of the high schools in the Province and trying to bring Level I, not even necessarily to the classroom of Levels I, II and III and Grades 10, 11 and 12, but the Level I that we are talking about and, because of the locations of the schools throughout the Province and the opportunity it would be for others, and the infrastructure already in place in some cases, has there been any thought given to bringing that forward in that manner, especially for rural Newfoundland and the places where the people just do not have the opportunity? Even if it is offered in the region, sometimes it is at a disadvantage to people who are on fixed incomes, people where child care is involved and other things are involved, because where they could sit back if they could receive their Level I through some manner, they could go to HRDC then and possibly receive some funding, or some other avenues and receive some funding, to do Levels II and III which would take care of some of these incidental expenses that they have such as child care and transportation.

I am just wondering, in relation to delivering Level I, and you touched on it, has there been any thought given to utilizing the schools or some organizations of that manner where you could deliver Level I in a cost-effective way but at least open to more people in the Province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: The member makes some very valid points because, I think, again if you look at delivering Level I, we have to look at where it is easily accessible for people in rural Newfoundland. I have to say that there is a lot of that taking place now around the Province. We do, in fact, have Level I being offered very extensively throughout Newfoundland and Labrador but we need to do more and we are working toward that.

With respect to your point in terms of high school, the one thing we have to bear in mind - and I know you recognize this - is that when you talk about illiteracy, people are very embarrassed and people who want to avail of services want to do so, in most cases, with people who have similar problems, who are at similar disadvantage, and they want to come together as a group, and maybe, you know, on an individual basis as you mentioned; but, there is always a concern when you bring - and I have had this mentioned to me - people who have problems into an environment where there are younger people who are doing well. If you were to bring them into the high school environment, it would have to be at a time when high school wasn't happening. It would have to be probably in the evening. Maybe that is something we should be looking at. Maybe we can utilize our schools. I think you make a very valid point in terms of venues for delivering literacy services in rural Newfoundland, because, again, it would have to be, I think, in the best interests of those who are looking to avail of the service in an environment in which they are comfortable and therefore will make the necessary progress.

You do make a valid point, I am sure, in all of these, and I will bring that back to those who are looking at the Goss Gilroy report, and all of the stakeholders who are involved in that, when they are looking at how best to deliver Level I, to also look at locations and look at rural Newfoundland; but I have to say that, again, from what I have seen to date - and I have asked for a complete list - there are a lot of programs being offered throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural parts of our Province, in terms of delivering Level I literacy programs.

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

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

I would like to refer back under Strategic Social Plan, subhead 2.6.01.01., and that is Salaries. My colleague asked the minister some questions on the 50 per cent of the expenditure of the Strategic Social Plan, that being over $1 million on Salaries. I wonder if the minister could elaborate a little bit more in terms of how many people are employed, where they are located, and things, to consume the $1 million salary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are, in fact, eighteen employees in total. That is the total number, and they are broken out there: seven at the unit - this would be based in the Confederation Building. There are six in the region, I referenced earlier in response to the hon. member's question. This refers to the regional co-ordinators, or regional planners as they are referenced. There are five positions through the Newfoundland Stats Agency, and these are the people who are working on the social audit.

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

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

I thank the minister for that explanation.

I would now like to move to Women's Policy, and that is under heading 2.7.01. Under 2.7.01.01. on that, Minister, how many employees are involved in that salary allocation?

CHAIR (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Under this heading, the salary class of seven permanent positions, temporary assistants and overtime is included in that area.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The difference of $111,000 between the Appropriation of Salaries in the Departmental Salary Details and line 2.7.01.01. of $458,100 in there, there is a difference of $111,000. There are seven salaried positions plus some temporary positions, are there?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Yes, the reason that it is revised lower than our true budget is due to the temporary vacancies that occurred during the fiscal year.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Under 2.7.01.05., Professional Services, can the minister explain, or elaborate, on what Professional Services were purchased?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Under Professional Services, the hiring of consultants was for special research projects in developing policies and programs. Most of this was the Violence Prevention Initiative, which is a shared resource throughout government, but the Women's Policy Office is the lead on the Violence Prevention Initiative. I think about 90 per cent of the Professional Services was done for violence prevention.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Under line 10 in that particular section, $705,000 is allotted for Grants and Subsidies. How many centres are operating now, Minister, and how much do they receive each? I know that our Social Policy Committee had the privilege of visiting with two or three of those centres on the West Coast in January, and I am not sure how much of a grant they are getting but they are certainly doing an awful lot work on what appears to be a small amount of money.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: It is a very good question, actually, and one that I would like to answer in a little bit of detail from the perspective that several years ago, I think back in 1996-1997, when federal funding was withdrawn from women's centres - and now the federal government is just providing project specific funding - the Province put together funding from various government departments of $20,000 to $30,000 to assist women's centres to stay open and pay for their heat and light and rent. The women's centres have all signed a contract with the provincial government, a service contract, which all of them are fulfilling above and beyond, I would say, the call of duty. As the hon. member has pointed out, they are doing very good work.

Last year we increased their funding to $50,000, and this year the funding for the Provincial Advisory Council was also increased so that they could take on their responsibilities in a better manner.

At this time, we have, I believe, seven women's centres. There is one in Port aux Basques, in the Stephenville area, Corner Brook area, Gander, St. John's, Goose Bay and the Labrador City-Wabush area. We are now in the end stages of negotiating a contract with the women in Grand Falls-Windsor and they are about to proceed to open a new women's centre.

We are also talking with many rural areas on how we might be able to be of assistance in the more rural areas of our Province, recognizing that we cannot have a women's centre in every community. We are looking for some new innovative approaches that will be able to offer service in the more remote and smaller communities of our Province.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Minister.

So there are seven centres at about $50,000 each, and the line there is $705,000. Does that mean that there is in excess of $350,000 going out in grants or subsidies? Could you elaborate on the nature of those?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, funding is there for the seven women's centres at $50,000 a year, and also budgeted somewhere in that area - I am not sure the whole $50,000 will be needed this year for the new women's centre. It depends on when their service agreement actually goes into place with the Women's Policy Office. The rest of the funding is provided for anti-violence work. So both anti-violence work and the women's centres come under that subheading.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Minister.

Has representation been made to the Department of Justice, under the anti-violence work, to ensure that resources are in place, so that when people are placed on a peace bond because they have made a threat towards their spouse or towards any other person in the community, to ensure that they are kept away?

I think back to February, 2000, when unfortunately a woman in such a position - and she had kept calling the police and telling them that her husband was going to kill her. That is the lady in Stephenville, Judy Ogden. At that time I remember that the Minister in charge of the Status of Women said that women should make the best possible choices for their own safety. I asked at that time and I am asking again now: Are women still put in the position, when they know that their husband is going to kill them, when he has threatened them, and when they have called the police - and, in fact, this woman was murdered by her husband as she said she would be. What other choices could she have made? What is being done in anti-violence to prevent this thing from happening, and does the government still have the attitude that women should make the best possible choices, and, if they do, could you please outline what choices the women can make? Can they live in a shelter for the rest of their lives, or live at home with police protection, or would they have to hire somebody themselves to protect them? Obviously, what was happening did not work in Judy Ogden's case.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much for the question, Madam Speaker.

I would like to reply to that question in several ways, and to say that we have transition houses in most of the regions of our Province. One of the things we are very proud of this year in our Budget is that more funding has been allocated through the Department of Health and Community Services to enhance transition house services, especially in Labrador and along the North Coast of Labrador. Besides this, the work that is been done through the violence prevention initiative is being done on various levels through the regional committees that are put in place. Some of it is being done through the Department of Justice. Others are being done with prevention programs, especially in schools, so that in future generations the difficulties that many of our families are encountering now, hopefully, they will not be there. We have also enhanced the funding in women's centers.

We have also put in place a very good program through the Department of Human Resources and Employment. That was announced just this past winter, whereby front-line staff are able to make more decisions more quickly to be able to assist people in emergency situations, so that when a person calls a social worker, the social worker does not have to say, well, I need to get permission for you to do such and such; you know, either to get a taxi or find another means of transportation out of a dangerous situation. All of that has been solved over the past few months and is being implemented actually at this time. So, we are improving services all the time.

I think, if you look at the work that the regional anti-violence committees are doing, you will find that there is a much greater awareness, and they are also getting out and informing women of how they can deal with violent situations, because many times in the past women were not aware of the services that are there.

So, I am very proud to say that, because of the funding that government has put in place, there is a much greater awareness now around our Province on how to deal with some of these very violent situations.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I realize that the transition houses, the violence prevention initiatives and all of those things are being put in place and that some work is being done. But, if there was a circumstance to arise, like Judy Ogden found herself in, where she was out living in her house and her husband was out in the community and had made threats to her and was stalking her - and I am not sure if maybe you should answer the question or if maybe I should address it to the Minister of Justice - but what specifically is there in place to help a person like that? She cannot live in a transition house or in a shelter forever with her children and even if she did not have children, it does not make sense that a woman, in this situation, should live in a transition house forever. What specifically is in place for a person who is threatening a woman who is living in her home? He has been put on a peace bond and, obviously, he is disobeying the peace bond. What specifically is in place for a woman like that?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

I should also note that the minister is also the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In answer to that question, I believe you made the comment yourself, that, more appropriately, it would be a detailed answer that would best come from the Department of Justice. I should say that each case certainly is different and that they should be all viewed from the perspective of each case being individual. The services that we have in the community, through our women's centres, through our violence prevention initiatives and that, are helping many women in this instance. Women are first advised to seek advice and to be registered at these programs so that they can learn, in instances where they feel unsafe and there are peace bonds, of how women's groups can advocate for them, and to make sure that the best possible individual program is put in place for each woman who finds herself in these circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the minister for her answer.

I will now address the same question to the Minister of Justice. In a situation where a women has been threatened or is constantly being threatened by her spouse, as was in the case of Judy Ogden in Stephenville a couple of years ago, and he is under a peace bond but he keeps harassing here and stalking her, are there are systems in place, is there anything in place to prevent what happened to Judy Ogden from happening to women in the future?

Now, at the time, the minister of the women's issues said that women should make choices for themselves, and I am asking: What choices would this women make? What choices would a women, in this situation, make? Obviously, they cannot live in a shelter or in a transition house forever. What protection is in the community for women who find themselves in this situation?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Madam Chair.

The peace bond in that case, of course, would have come about because of incidents of violence between the parties that you refer to, after an appearance in provincial court. The judge would have assessed the level of risk and decided, first of all, if there should be a peace bond and what the conditions of that bond should be. Once the person requesting the bond left the confines of the court and found out that the conditions were being breached - because I understand in that particular case we didn't end up with a tragic result right away, we ended up with a number of incidents where the bond was not abided by. In those cases, the complainant goes back to the court again, through notifying the police, and the person is charged with a breach of the bond or a breach of undertaking. It is reviewed on each of those occasions by the judge and, again, a judge would assess, based on the level of threat, whether the bond should be revoked and the person incarcerated or whether there should be stiffer conditions placed in the bond. It is a judgement call that the judge hearing the testimony decides.

Now, this particular case, regardless of what kind of bond there was, had very tragic results because the conditions were not abided by. We do have, in our system, some of these cases where the only way to prevent any kind of violence, if somebody is indeed intent on being violent, is to remove their liberties and put them in jail. That is the only way to do it, take them off the streets and put them in jail. Whether they should have that right of liberty taken away from them, that is a call of the judge who makes the decision in the first place of the bond, as to whether he can let the person go on a recognizance or on certain conditions.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to ask a few questions and get myself familiar with some of the items here in Executive Council. One of the headings that I would like to comment on is 3.1.06., the Opening Doors program. For the interest of those who don't know, I guess the listening audience, it is a program providing appropriations for employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, and it is cost-shared with the federal government. It is a very important program, I say to everybody present.

I would just like to ask a couple of questions. It shows in the Salaries detail there of the Opening Doors program, Salaries of $2,395,700. It talks about permanent employees, temporary and other employees. I would like an explanation of how many employees we are talking about. I am not totally familiar with how the program works, but I know that our office took advantage of the program there just a short time ago. We had a temporary employee. I don't know if it is a situation where people are hired full time and it is a regular job, or if it is an opportunity where people are hired on a part-time basis or a seasonal basis and then reapply again as the appropriations and the funding comes forward.

Before somebody answers that particular question, I would like also to refer to the Amount to be Voted, Revenue - Federal. It shows that there was $253,600 budgeted for 2001-2002, and it looks like we only spent $154,000. That is federal money. I am wondering if the other $100,000 is carried forward for this fiscal year or if it is money that we did not spend and was returned to the federal government, because it is certainly an area where there is a great need. I am certain that even with the amount of funding that has been allocated there we still fall short, far short, of providing employment with a lot of people out there with disabilities today. I know in my own district, it is a situation where a lot of people have not only approached my office but approached some of the other agencies as well. We have been fortunate enough over the years to form a relationship with employers, where the employers will pay and provide half the cost of hiring a person with a disability and the government agency will provide the other half. That has been working out quite well. In fact, I do not have to talk or tell anybody about the values of the program and what it means to the individual who has been fortunate enough to get a job.

Madam Chair, I would just like to find out, number one, how many employees are hired on a full time basis with government and if it is permanent jobs? Number two, what opportunities are there for seasonal employees? Is it a situation where there is an amount of money just put forward every year for people for the first time taking part in the program?

I noticed also, in the salary details, there was $1,973,300 for permanent employees and then there was $577,700 for temporary and other employees. That is about $500,000 that was added extra for part-time employees. Madam Chair, if somebody would provide me with that information, I would certainly appreciate it.

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

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

I would be happy to answer the questions for the Member for Bonavista South.

First of all, there are sixty-five permanent positions covered under that salary vote. It also includes the temporary assistants and the overtime. So, there are sixty-five temporary - just so the member can hear the answer to the question - sixty-five permanent, plus temporary assistance and overtime. Temporary varies from time to time, obviously, year to year depending on the needs and that sort of thing. Overtime would be associated with the various work projects.

With respect to the deferential between the budget Revised and the Estimates for 2002-2003, this is specifically related to the provision for hiring ten extra permanent staff into the Opening Doors program. So that will bring it up to seventy-five. What we have seen with respect to the decline in Revenue-Federal was because last year there was some difficulty in hiring these positions; delayed recruitment in hiring. The money is put back this year to hire ten new permanent positions. Also, we did have some employee turnover which resulted in some savings in that particular category. If people leave because it is cost-shared through two programs, one program called EAPD and the other one called JEEPS, and both of these programs are federally provided funded programs and obviously if the positions are not in place you do not get that portion. So because of the turnover in staff and the delay in hiring and recruitment of new staff to replace them, the amount was down. I think that answers both of your questions.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: The other question I would like to ask the minister is: What kind of activity is coming forward for people to be included in this program? I understand there are sixty-five permanent employees. Does she have any kind of a number as to the number of people that we help on a temporary basis or on a seasonal basis, and how does that relate to the number of people that come looking? There must certainly be a great need for new people to enter the program and to take advantage of this federal funding that is being put forward for exactly that cause. I wonder if the minister could enlighten me as to what kind of figures or what kind of numbers are brought forward in that regard?

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

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

As the member opposite knows, when people apply for a job oftentimes you look at their skill sets and not their disability. So many people with disabilities do not apply under the Opening Doors Program. We have many people with disabilities working in our building and throughout government, in the health care sector, and the school board sector with disabilities, but they do not come under this program. So to think that the only people with disabilities are working under this program, under Opening Doors - in other words, we only have sixty-five out of the thousands of people that we have hired - is inaccurate. I hope you are not making that assumption. I can tell you that there are sixty-five permanent positions from within this federal government cost-shared program. This year there will be seventy-five. From time to time there are temporary positions hired for projects or whatever. Generally, we look to fill them on a permanent basis because the money is guaranteed for the permanent positions.

The answer is, unless you did an in-depth assessment of the whole public service, I would not be able to tell you how many people with disabilities are working in the system, but I can tell you that this program has been very successful. It is one that has allowed certain people to find employment who, perhaps, otherwise would not have found employment in government and in the various subsections of government.

In fact, we recently had the occasion of launching a newsletter through the Opening Doors program with many of the people with disabilities, and we do not even look at these people with disabilities. They are people that we work side by side with everyday, fabulous skill sets, doing a great job and very pleased to have that opportunity. We did promote and release a very nice, and I think, well put together communications document by launching this Opening Doors program. We also recognized the people, at that time, who had various years of service through a ceremony. I can honestly say that, on behalf of myself and government, we were as proud to deliver those recipients with their awards as they were to receive them. It was a very proud and very personal moment for me, in my role as Treasury Board minister, to allocate and to identify these people who have made great contributions.

I know this is not about the contributions of people with disabilities, but I can say that this Opening Doors program is not the only avenue for people with disabilities in our system. I would say to the member opposite, we would have to go through the health boards, the school boards, all of the government departments. That kind of information, you would not even ask of people because it is not important really. I guess what is important is that the money we have gotten from the federal government, sure we would like to have more, but I think what we have gotten we have used and we will continue to use it this year by hiring another ten through this particular federal-provincial program.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair, I am certainly not questioning the integrity of the program or the worthiness of the program, because it certainly is a good program. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many people were employed on a temporary basis with the $577,700 that was put forward as temporary and other employees. This was obviously people who were hired either on a seasonal basis or a temporary basis. Could she inform me as to how many people received benefits from that sum of money?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I thank you very much for the question. Generally what we do is, we look at full-time equivalents. So it could have been four people doing one job, depending on what it is, over a period of time. I will try to ascertain that. It is a bit of a make-work project, I guess, but I will certainly go and ask my staff in terms of how many extra people. A lot of the temporary assistance was provided over a short-term period and I think that the bulk of what you will see is that sixty-five of those people took advantage - the permanent people took advantage of most of that salary vote, and there was very little that had temporary assistance and a very small amount of overtime. I will go back to my staff and get them to dig out the numbers if that is the important issue here.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say to the minister, I would like to know. There are a lot of questions that come forward as to how people can access the Opening Doors Program and how they can be included. If there is money there for temporary help, then I would like to know the number of people being helped or how people would go about being able to access that amount of funding.

Madam Chair, I will move on to the Intergovernmental Affairs Office. On page eighteen, Intergovernmental Affairs Office, 2.3.01. and 2.3.02., the Minister's Office and Executive Support. This office at one time, I understand, was part of the Office of the Premier. The Premier would be the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister as well. I think probably the only time in my recollection here, in my nine years, was when the Member for Virginia Waters, I think, was made Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. I don't think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister says there were times before that. He would know, but that is my first recollection.

I say to the minister: To me it is a very important office. It is an office that I am not so sure that people know exactly what happens, or the importance of that particular office. I sometimes wonder, and I am not questioning the minister's, I guess, commitment to the job, or what the minister is bringing forward, or what work is involved there, but I wonder if the minister would inform the House as to what his office involvement has been in dealing with the federal government on some important issues as it relates to this Province? I think of foreign overfishing, and I am wondering if the minister would inform the House as to - if he has somebody assigned or if there is a dialogue back and forth; because surely the minister cannot do it all. The minister cannot be the Government House Leader and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and take on some of the great challenges that are brought forward in dealing with the federal government.

I know there are other governments as well, but I would think that the minister's first commitment and the minister's first trip would be to deal with the central government up in Ottawa. While we stand here in this House many times and ask questions of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a lot of times it is questions and it is answers that the minister does not really have any control over. While he can provide what he would like to see done, and what effort he puts into it, I am wondering what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his department have done when it comes to foreign overfishing.

I feel, Madam Chair, that this is one area that this department and this minister should certainly be performing a very important role in being a spokesperson and spokespeople for this Province. I would like to ask the minister if he would be kind enough to let the House know what efforts he and his office have put into dealing with the federal government when it comes to foreign overfishing.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To allude to a couple of the introductory remarks made by the Member for Bonavista South in reference to his suggestion that he was unaware of any other members being a specific member of IGA, a specific Cabinet minister, other than the Member for Virginia Waters, I indicated to the member that, that was not so. That has varied throughout the years with different premiers. Usually it is a portfolio that the Premier had assigned to himself because of the very nature of the kind of work that is in Intergovernmental Affairs, dealing with other governments, dealing with the federal government, dealing with provincial governments. Usually it has been the job of the Premier but, as I have indicated, there have been several members who have been in his own government, when his party was the government of the day, several people other than the Premier, were Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs. I do not know them all but I know, for example, the brother of Mr. Ottenheimer was a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, as was Justice Hickman, as was Mr. Crosbie, as was Mr. Ron Dawe, and these are just some people who I can remember who were ministers, and the Member for Lewisporte indicates that he was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. So, there have been several.

Madam Chair, it is becoming increasingly more the trend because the work is expanding and becoming more involved. Particularly, relationships with the federal government are becoming more complex, there are more issues to be dealt with, and the other provinces are now generally moving towards that direction of having separate portfolios from the Premier dealing with the IGA. I gave the hon. member the other day, I think, a breakdown, and I think I said there were six and five. There were six provinces now that had members, separate from the Premier, as Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Madam Chair, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South mentions, specifically, a particular portfolio. Now, I just wanted to say again that the department works in conjunction with other portfolios, with other departments. We co-ordinate and we analyze the work of other departments and co-ordinate their activities, and with every department that would have involvement with the federal government, we would be participating, we would be co-ordinating, particularly with agreements. There is not an agreement signed with any department but Intergovernmental Affairs is a signatory to every agreement that is signed by every department.

In terms of being involved with issues, that again depends on the importance of the issue at the moment, and the timing. One of the issues which I have spent a lot of time with is equalization. I meet with, first of all - and as hon. members know, that is a battle, equalization, trying to get the federal government to agree with our position. and one of the things I do is lobby with governments that have Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs. That is a good place to start, and very early in this portfolio, because one of the line activities of this department is francophone affairs. One of my major activities was to develop a rapport with the Province of Quebec; and, I might say, I am very pleased with the rapport that I have developed, and that helps the Premier. When I go there, I talk about issues that we are concerned about with Quebec: the Lower Churchill, the Upper Churchill, and hydro development.

These are things I advance to my counterpart, and do that with every other minister to try and prepare the way and lobby for this Province. That is the overall approach, Madam Chair, that I take. Over the past year it has been equalization that has been my major thrust in the last little while, yes. Whenever an issue develops, the first person with whom I shall make a contact is my federal counterpart, Mr. Dion, and we have had several meetings about issues related to this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you read his article?

MR. LUSH: I beg your pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you see the article he had published (inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes, I did so.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is not very flexible on this issue (inaudible).

MR. LUSH: It is a hard job selling the notion of equalization that we promote in this Province but that is the challenge. As the Premier said today, that is the challenge.

With the fisheries, I can tell the hon. member that we are going to become more involved with the foreign overfishing. We are going to become more involved but yet, we are involved. We are going to become more involved. When my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, takes his issues before the federal government very often he will be in touch with our department and very often we go together. We have gone together on issues; not only he and I, but the Minister of IGA and other portfolios, we go together to present the case for Newfoundland and Labrador. We take whatever initiative we can take, Madam Chair, because it is a difficult job. It is a difficult task advancing the cause of Newfoundland and Labrador but I can assure the Member for Bonavista South, that we will not miss an opportunity. We will not be derelict in our duty in terms of fighting for Newfoundland and Labrador, be it foreign overfishing, Madam Chair, or be it with the softwood lumber - and the hon. gentleman is awfully concerned about the softwood lumber, and we have done a lot of work on that too. It is hard though, Madam Chair, because you do not have immediate success. It does not mean that what you are doing is a failure or what you are doing is not important.

Madam Chair, we will continue to move the file on foreign overfishing because the hon. gentleman is concerned about it, and everybody on this side is concerned about it, and we have to make our case and make it successfully. We will not relent until we have convinced the federal government of their obligation in this matter and we will keep moving forward until we see some positive action in this regard.

I thank the hon. gentleman for his concern as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say to the minister, I am not so sure what success he has had in dealing with his federal cousins when it comes to foreign overfishing. I am not so sure what success the hon. minister has had or if he has taken the case forward in dealing with the EI system as his federal cousins have changed up in Ottawa. You may have done a lot of work but I question the success, Madam Chair, when you see people in this Province today working at seasonal occupations and only being able to acquire ten or twelve weeks work and have to have their amount of money that they make divided by a figure that is greater than the number of weeks that they worked. It is certainly not helpful to the people who use the Unemployment Insurance system to support and feed their families. The system, Madam Chair, that while we all would like to have a job, many cases people working at a seasonal occupation are not fortunate enough to be able to work 365 or 2,000 hours a year and not collect EI. I say to the minister, there is certainly a lot of work left to be done on that particular file. I hear of it everyday when I am dealing - and I know the minister has, because he is dealing with the issue as well in many communities in his district. He is dealing with the issue just about on a daily basis.

Madam Chair, I understand the EI system right now - and the minister can correct me if I am wrong - has something like a $30 billion surplus. That is $30,000 million in an EI system, as a surplus, that has been taken and robbed from the taxpayers of not only Newfoundland but this whole country.

MR. ANDERSEN: $32 billion.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is even worse, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains. If there is $32 billion that is even worse. I am not against people having some money to look after a need, but I am against hoarding money at the expense of the working poor in this country. That is what I am against.

I say to the minister, when he makes his plea to Ottawa maybe he can go and talk to his federal cousins. Maybe he can go and talk to his federal minister and plea with the federal minister to release and open up the coffers, open up the purse strings so we can at least have people put in a training program; where they can go and access a training program to make them more employable.

I get calls everyday, and I know other members here as well, that approached HRDC and approached other departments looking for funding to return to school. I am talking about people who sometimes want to do an ABE program, the Adult Basic Education program, no funding;, talking about people who want to go in and take a trade so when they go and knock on somebody's door at least they can bring something to offer, people that can see that the trade will allow them to probably get a job, either here in this Province or outside the Province, only to be told that there is no money there. There is no money available for training. I ask the minister what success he has had in dealing with his federal counterpart, his federal cousin up in Ottawa?

We were told today by the Premier that it is important to be onside with the people in Ottawa. We should work with them because there are great benefits to be attained from doing that. I ask the minister what success he has had since he became the minister: number one, to deal with the deviser rule as it relates to people in this Province only being able to get ten and twelve weeks work a year and then get laid off because of the seasonal job that they perform. Very important work, I say to people opposite. Then have to divide it by fourteen and try to feed a family on an income that is certainly well below the poverty level. Number two, Madam Chair, to ask the minister what success he has had in getting some of this money released so that we can get our people trained and made ready for work when they can go out knocking on somebody's door in order to do, I suppose, the most honest thing a person can do, look for a job.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We are talking about two things here. I do not believe that the hon. member, in his own case, would want to measure his success against his efforts, because sometimes we put in a lot of effort but we are not always successful. That is one of the great challenges of politics, is pressing, advancing the cause of the people for whom we work. Sometimes the measure of success does not correlate with the effort, certainly does not correlate with the compassion. It does not correlate with the sincere that we have in advancing the cause for whom we work.

I am hoping that the Member for Bonavista South is not trying to attribute any lack of initiative, Madam Chair, or any lack of effort, because the success does not correlate with the effort. As I have said, I am sure he would not want his constituents to believe that about him, that because he is not successful in everything that he tries to get, that that somehow reflects on him as a member and by the same token here, Madam Chair. It is very nice and very convenient to be able to articulate all of the things you would do if you were there; all the fighting you would do if you were there. When you get there, Madam Chair, you realize the challenge. You realize the difficulty. I realize sometimes there is a little ploy sometimes to put us in the camp with our federal cousins or our relatives or our political counterparts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: I have not said anything to suggest that I am disagreeing with the Premier. I have not said a word. Not because the hon. members on the opposite side say I am saying it, that I said it. I have not said it; have not come close to making the suggestion. The point I am making - that is precisely what members of the Opposition have in mind. They would like to trick you. They would like to get you into that position where you are not condemning your federal counterparts. They would like, somehow, to get you into that position of saying: You cannot refute. You cannot argue about anything of your federal cousins because you are of the same political stripe. The Premier made the point, I think, that he would rather be working with his friends, his political friends, than his enemies; but he went on to say that he was not afraid to take them on. That he did not agree with them all the time. There is nobody on this side of the House afraid to take on our federal cousins. Nobody!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I tell you, we are not going to be quiet. We are not going to be complacent about federal policies that are not helping this Province. Madam Chair, I thought I heard the Premier say that he was going to continue to advance the cause of this Province. I thought I heard the Premier say that, that he was not going to stop. He was not going to stop to try and improve the equalization formula for the people of this Province. We are not going to stop, Madam Chair, until we get more money for health in this Province. We are not going to stop until we get more money for education in this Province, Madam Chair. We are not going to stop as long as there is disparity between services in Newfoundland and services in the rest of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, we are not going to stop. We are not going to stop fighting as long as there is overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, we are not going to stop fighting until we get our fair share of the resources offshore in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, we are not going to stop fighting until every Newfoundlander and every Labradorian has the same level of service as that extended to other Canadians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, if the hon. Member for Bonavista South thinks that this particular member is not going to avail of all of the opportunities, is not going to avail of all of the privileges extended by the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, to fight for the cause of Newfoundland and Labrador, he is barking up the wrong tree.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair, what a performance, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: As his former Premier would say: What tripe!

I suggest that if a report card was brought forward to the effectiveness of this government dealing with their cousins up in Ottawa, it was be a dismal failure. While the Government House Leader stands here and says that they are not on side with the federal government, and they are not supporting the federal government, his own leader, today, the Premier, who sits directly besides him, got up and talked about taking on his cousins -

MR. SULLIVAN: We are on the inside, he said.

MR. FITZGERALD: We are on the inside, working with them.

Madam Chair, the shame was this past weekend when I saw the federal Finance Minister come here to Newfoundland. I would have thought, with the way that the federal government and the way that the federal Finance Minister have treated this Province, that we would be there demanding equal access to the coffers of this country, demanding an equal share in Confederation!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: What did this group do, I say to the people opposite? What did this group do?

MR. SULLIVAN: Carried him around on their shoulders.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Premier, I would say, has black and blue marks on him from carrying the Minister of Finance around on his shoulders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, I thought he was taking place in a revival. He was on the stage, going with his hands. I thought it was a revival meeting. How can you get a fair deal from Ottawa, and how can you expect the Minister of Finance to pay attention to the needs of this Province when you go and make heros of them every time they come to the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) election.

MR. FITZGERALD: It would almost make you believe there is an election on, I say to the people opposite.

I heard the best last night, as I was driving home. I am not sure if it was the individual statement or if it was somebody recapping what the individual said - the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. SULLIVAN: Which one?

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. John Efford, I say to them. His message was, to the people in Bonavista-Trinity Conception: I need to be elected with a big majority. I need a big majority to take to Ottawa because I can be more effective in dealing with the problems of this Province.

What hogwash! Surely, I say to people opposite, those kinds of statements must be taking advantage of the people from this Province. We are not that naive anymore. We are not that stunned anymore. We have moved ahead.

So, I say to members opposite and I say to the Government House Leader, Madam Chair, when you are dealing with Ottawa nobody expects you to deal with Ottawa and get 100 per cent results, but we have been hearing very little. We have been hearing very little from your office in dealing with foreign overfishing. We have been hearing very little from your office in dealing with changes to the EI system that have crucified seasonal workers in this Province. We have heard absolutely nothing in dealing with the softwood lumber problem, that people might think only deals with British Columbia and Quebec. Well, Madam Chair, I say there is a great price to be paid in this Province as well.

I say to the minister that I would like to see your report card. I would like to see how effective you have been. Maybe you can table the number of visits that you have made to Ottawa. Surely you keep an account of what you do and the activities that you take part in. Maybe the minister would like to table the representation that he has made to Ottawa, and let the people of the Province and the people sitting in this Legislature know full well what it is he has done and how successful he has been in dealing with his federal cousins, if it is that important to be on the same wavelength and carry the same stripe as the people in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I want to say again to the hon. the Member for Bonavista South, he would like to think that, because you cannot produce the success all the time - he said it himself - that somehow you are not working. Again, the suggestion that you table - he cannot believe that you have made a representation. That is somehow showing a lack of respect, showing a lack of confidence in somebody, that you want to table. Well, Madam Chair, I do not want any hon. member here ever to table anything for me, if they have told me they had done it. If they have told me they have done it, I would believe in an hon. member's word.

Now, the hon. member mentioned the EI. Well, I can tell the hon. member that we have worked on the EI here and we have brought improvements to the EI; brought considerable improvements to the EI. The only one that we haven't brought about any measure of success on - and I feel sorry for it, and it is a hard sell - is improving the fourteen to fifteen weeks in the divisor principle. We are not happy about that. We have worked, and I have done precisely what the hon. member has suggested, because the position of the federal government is that, as long as we keep the bar down to ten or twelve weeks, it will not improve. I do not necessarily subscribe to that, but I am telling the hon. member what the argument is, what the federal position is. It is, that if we kept it down with the ten, if we kept it there and kept the EI at a pretty comfortable salary, a pretty comfortable income, that people would not move from that. That is their position and they say they have facts to prove that has worked all over Canada but particularly in Atlantic Canada.

My argument to that is: there are some jobs that are seasonal. There are some jobs that are seasonal, and it is very difficult to get beyond the ten or twelve weeks; and then, when we do, when we apply the divisor principle, that aggravates it, that exacerbates the situation, and makes it a lower income.

We have worked on that, Madam Chair. I have spoken to the hon. Jane Stewart on that on more than one occasion. Just recently, I think, as recently as two months ago, just before the House opened, I had an audience with her and pressed that case particularly of the ten and twelve weeks; and then, when I saw that they were sort of intransigent, when I saw that they were not very resilient on that particular topic, when I saw that they did not seem to have any desire to move on that one, I suggested, if we could not offer some training for those particular people, if we could not somehow enhance and improve their ability to get work in other areas, or even to get a second job during the winter, give them the training, she was inclined to look at that. So, they are looking at that aspect of offering more training to people at that level, to see if we cannot bring it up. She did indicate, her and her officials, that this was working in other parts of Canada, that people were moving beyond the minimum level of ten to twelve weeks. I appreciate that it makes a bit of a difficult problem in Newfoundland and Labrador, where a lot of these people - not a lot of them - all of them are engaged in seasonal activity, seasonal work.

Madam Chair, yes, we have brought about, by our efforts, and efforts by members on the other side have been successful in improving the EI program, in improving the amounts that they get, improving the entry requirements, the whole bit; we have brought about improvements. Yes, there is work to be done. There is more work to be done and we keep lobbying on behalf of these people, these people who happen to be at that particular level. We lobby on their behalf, continue to lobby, continue to work and speak to every person that we know that can be influential at the federal level. We work with also the members. We work with our members there and inform them of the kinds of things that we are trying to do, because it is important when we are dealing with the federal government that we have as many people on our side as possible, because we lack the numbers to make the big lobby. We lack the numbers to have that influence that sometimes we should have.

Madam Chair, we leave not a stone unturned in our effort to try and improve the lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to improve the lot of this Province, to ensure that we are getting an equal share of the revenues coming from our resources, particularly our offshore resources. That is our effort, Madam Chair, that is the effort of this government. Though members of the Opposition will try to get us into a play with not wanting to lobby hard with our federal counterparts, not wanting to fight as vigorously as they would like, no, Madam Chair, that is not the position of this government. This government will lobby with the federal Liberals, they will lobby as hard as they would lobby with any other government, but we do believe, that the fact we are of the same political stripe, we believe that helps. If it doesn't, if that does not work, we will do what has to be done to make things work.

It is very easy, when you are in the Opposition, to be critical and to criticize for lack of effort, and to want to show the success, show the beef, show the list. It is very nice to be able to do all of those things. Madam Chair, having said all of that, nobody on this side - nobody on this side! - will be found wanting for not putting forward their maximum effort, for not turning every stone possible to ensure, as I have said again, that the people of this Province are getting maximum benefit for their contribution to the great Confederation of Canada, and that we are getting maximum return for our resources. That is our commitment, that is our desire, Madam Chair, and we will not relent until we have achieved these goals for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Yes, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I am extremely glad to be able to stand and talk a little bit about the budget debate on the Executive Council. I was not going to talk about the Minister's Office at all, but after listening to the great speech last week, and a great speech today, I think we are a little bit remiss on having made his Budget so small, given the major contribution that his department is making to our relationship with the federal government. Fifty thousand dollars in travel would hardly be enough for the minister this coming year; I think we should give him a little bit more.

I do have a couple of questions, Madam Chair, particularly about the Strategic Social Plan. We made many comments in this House about the significant amount of money we spend on health care, and it represents forty-five cents on every program dollar we are spending. We are talking about spending $1.4 billion on our health program. I would suggest, Madam Chair, that our health program and our education program are the two major cornerstones for any Strategic Social Plan for the Province.

I guess, as I look at this particular category here, the Strategic Social Plan, I wonder if the Minister of Health and Community Services can provide us with some comment about the relationship between this strategic social planning exercise and the strategic planning that is taking place within our health system, and whether or not he is going to be in a position within a couple of weeks to be able to unfold that strategic plan for us, and tell us how this strategic planning group here, the Social Strategic Planning group, have had input into the plan that he is about to unfold in the next couple of weeks.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Indeed the Strategic Social Plan, as it presently exists within the Province, has played a major part. As the hon. member would be aware, the consultation process which my predecessor engaged in for a number of weeks, traveling the Province extensively, those consultations were, in fact, coordinated and chaired by the different strategic social committees within the different regions; I guess, a kind of model in terms of the consultations. So, they were instrumental in terms of organizing that forum to get the input from the people who participated in these various forums.

To the Strategic Health Plan, to which the hon. member has previously raised the question in the House, the timeline right now, the plan, is in draft form and it is my hope and expectation that we will have a final draft by the end of May.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Madam Chair, I know it is not a part of this particular area here, but in response to the minister's comment, would the minister be able to provide some sense for the House as to how he might have been able to announce a $1.4 billion health budget in the absence of having that plan unfolded first?

CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the hon. member's question: I know that he has been a regular advocate of the need for having a comprehensive and strategic health plan, and there is no question. We recognize that and that is what we are moving towards. I guess, to follow the hon. member's logic, following on that, we would really have had - the amounts of money that we have committed to health care, in the time that I have been here in the House, has been done in the absence of a strategic plan. I guess it's an idea that has arrived, and I guess it goes back to the hon. member's previous question.

I think we have learned a lot in this Province by having engaged in that Strategic Social Plan, that we have learned the benefits that can be derived from doing this thorough planning. I should point out to the hon. member that the Strategic Social Plan was not the first effort that this government made in terms of doing that thorough, that comprehensive planning, in this Province. In fact, the Strategic Economic Plan, which was the first initiative - and I did have the opportunity to have played a small role in that, because, at the time, I served as a volunteer on the Advisory Council on the Economy and traveled the Province as part of the consultation process in developing that whole concept and that whole idea. From there, we expanded and grew into the SSP. I guess, now that we are into this mode, now that we are into this thinking, realizing and understanding the need for this type of comprehensive approach to planning, the Strategic Health Plan, as was recognized by my predecessor, was a natural outcome.

Certainly, I think, in advance of that - the hon. member would surely recognize, as he was a participant in the process - there was a comprehensive consultation process that was pursued, asking the stakeholders of the Province to give some direction as to where they felt this Province should be headed as we are looking out, recognizing the reality that we have to deal with. I think that is something that all of us in this House have to be reminded of from time to time. There is not a problem out there that we face on a day-to-day basis that we could not deal with quickly if we had unlimited funds, but that is not the reality. Regardless of what the future holds in terms of any future for our federal-provincial agreements, I think we all recognize that it will always be incumbent on us to make sure that we make the maximum use of the resources that are available to us. I know the hon. member agrees with that because I have heard him espouse that publicly, and in terms of the strategic health plan, that is where we are headed.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Chair, I acknowledge the minister's comments about where we are going with the strategic plan but I have to comment to the minister that right now, today, health services are provided in this Province by fourteen different health boards. A couple of weeks ago - in fact, six weeks ago this week - this government came down with a Budget that, within that Budget, allocated $1.4 billion to our health system. Somewhere around $1 billion of that has gone to health boards. Just a little shy, I think, Mr. Minister, of $1 billion going to health boards.

Number one, it is $1.4 billion in the absence of any kind of strategy, any kind of vision, any kind of sense of where we are going. Number two, we are asking health boards, fourteen of them, to provide health services throughout this Province. They are the ones that we asking to deliver the programs. We are asking them to be prudent. We are asking them to be reasonable. We are asking them to be strategic in their thinking and develop a strategy for health services in their respective areas. In exchange, what they have said to government: Let us have this amount of money. But what has happened, Mr. Minister, is that six weeks ago when the Budget came down, boards expected to know fairly quickly how much they were going to have. This is the problem, Mr. Chair, that we have in this system. Six weeks ago, we announced a $1.4 billion budget for health in this Province. We told fourteen health boards to run it, but, as of today, neither one of those fourteen health boards has any idea what their budget is.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's like going fishing without a compass, isn't it?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Exactly. Like the member says: It's like going fishing without a compass.

We are asking fourteen boards to provide health services, but, as of today, they do not know how much they have. What will happen, Mr. Minister, September coming, we will be back in this House and you will be standing, like your predecessor did, and say: By the way, we have a major problem. Health boards out there have a massive deficit. We have to make some major changes. We have to make some major adjustments in our budget. Health boards are going to have to make some cuts.

How does the minister expect boards, and how can boards function and develop good quality services, proceed with their action plans, if they do not know how much money they have? There were boards last year, in October month, Mr. Minister, who adjusted their level of service based on your predecessor's direction to make sure they had a balanced budget. They deferred doing certain things. They delayed implementation of new programs. They closed operating rooms just in the last year. They are still sitting out there today waiting for your answer, waiting for you to tell them how much money they have in this year so they know how to proceed.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I just remind the members that the time allocated for debate on the Executive Council Estimates has expired.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the House Leader for giving me the opportunity to clue up. I just want to leave the minister with this final comment. If, in fact, the minister is going to ask boards to be fiscally responsible, to be prudent in how they are running the system, and ask them to make sure they balance their budget, they have to live within the budget they have, I think it is only reasonable for those fourteen health boards to get to know immediately - in fact, they should have known six weeks ago - in the absence of being told the day of the Budget, it is only reasonable and prudent if the minister were, today, to tell those health boards how much money they are going to have next year or what their budget is.

Throughout this document and in this area on Executive Council in particular, there are several categories. This is one here: Strategic Social Plan. We have another one here talking about Strategic Human Resource Management and Development Plan. Throughout this area of this Budget document, and through all the references, you will find all the references to government's strategic plan, human resource plan, fiscal management, economic plans, social policy plans. There is no sense of having these plans on paper. You need to make sure that the people who you are asking to implement those plans, the agencies that are out there running these programs, it is important that they understand where they are going.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to be able to make those few comments at the closing moments of debate in this House but as you can see, this is a very significant area and it is unfortunate, very unfortunate, that we have such limitations on a debate that has such major implications for the Province. What we are talking about here is debating our financial future and talking about how we are going to provide programs in the future. It is unfortunate that we have such significant limitations on Budget Debate and discussion on this very significant issue.

I do thank you for the opportunity to have those few comments. I request that the minister give full consideration to the last comment I made, and tomorrow morning, if he would, advise health boards exactly what budget they are going to have for next year so they can get on with doing what you have asked them to do, which is balance their budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, subheads 2.3.01 through 3.1.02 carried.

On motion, Department of Executive Council, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that the Estimates of the Executive Council are passed without amendment 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. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House I want to make an announcement re the Estimates Committee. The Social Services Committee will meet at 7 o'clock this evening to review the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. It says: Please note that this meeting will take place in the House and not in the committee room. The same Committee will meet in the House tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. to review the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services.

I move that the House on its rising do adjourn, and that this House do now adjourn.

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