May 13, 1997               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLIII  No. 24


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the galleries today, on behalf of all members, twenty Level I students from the Cultural Heritage Class, Queen Elizabeth Regional High School, from the Districts of Topsail, Conception Bay South and Conception Bay East & Bell Island, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Janie House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again today, I find it necessary to address an issue that I raised in the House yesterday when I read for the record a letter from Dr. Michael Delmas of the National Polytechnique Institute of Toulouse, France. As hon. members are aware, this letter emphatically stated that a CBC report referencing the university and the tannery for Baie Verte was "totally unfounded".

It is most regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the CBC report on yesterday's proceedings on this issue did not clarify the situation.

This morning, I spoke by telephone to Dr. Delmas, and he again assured me that there is no legal dispute and no disagreement between the National Polytechnique Institute, Teleos Trading of Italy, and NATSIQ Newfoundland. In the case of the North American Environmental Technologies, Dr. Delmas also advised me that the Institute has no legal dispute with that company, nor is he aware of any dispute involving NAET and any French company.

It is most unfortunate that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has continued to leave an impression that there is some legal dispute, and by inference that this is linked to Teleos Trading, and that this could compromise the tannery project.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Teleos Trading has a good track record in the tannery business. The tanning process to be used at Baie Verte is the one the company is using in Italy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any tanning process developed in France.

As Dr. Delmas has told me, the Institute in Toulouse has no legal dispute with either NATSIQ or North American Environmental Technologies. In fact, the Institute will be working with NATSIQ on seal oil refining at Baie Verte.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the CBC - in fact I do not think, I know, and I should ask, that the CBC should immediately act to address the issue of misleading reports it has carried about the tannery for Baie Verte. Not to do so would be a grave disservice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all partners connected with the tannery project.

Mr. Speaker, since I had that telephone conversation this morning with Dr. Delmas in France, he has faxed me another letter to clarify in full detail the misleading information put out by the CBC Corporation. I am going to read for the record and then I will table the letter:

Mr. Minister, following your phone call and our talk, I can confirm that the report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with reference to our university, is totally unfounded and unfair to courageous people in Newfoundland engaged in this very interesting industrial project. We have signed an agreement with North American Environmental Technology and a French company, Gaches Incorporated to developed tanning operations in Canada one year ago. The agreement failed recently because the French company cannot hold all of its commitments and does not want to invest in Canada, not because of any legal dispute. We shall work with NATSIQ Newfoundland and the Baie Verte partners when these companies will be ready, probably when all the official agreements will be signed.

I speak on behalf of myself, as head of this corporation here and on behalf of Professor A. Costes, president of our university, looking forward for the successful outcome of the Baie Verte project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank the minister for sending a copy of the statement before the House opened and, of course, the copy of the other letter just received from Dr. Delmas. I have also been in correspondence with the Toulouse University and it is pretty straightforward as the letter as indicated. What is so shameful here is that, at a time when Newfoundland needs jobs more than ever, we had to have negative spins put on something that could be so positive for this Province and that we need so badly.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, to the minister and in support of everybody in this House of Assembly, that we get on to creating jobs and something positive in this Province. I am looking forward to a long history with this company, which is going to invest in this Province and is planning on staying here - the Teleos Trading group. So, I look forward to their coming to this Province and putting people to work.

MR. EFFORD: They should apologize.

MR. SHELLEY: They certainly should apologize, I agree with the minister and put this straight in this Province once and for all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise my hon. colleagues that privatization arrangement have been concluded on eight parks to be opened for this Victoria Day weekend. I am pleased to announce that a greater number of camp sites are being offered to the public this Victoria Day weekend as compared to the same time last year. Government is currently in the process of concluding final arrangements on the remaining private parks.

The newly privatized parks to be opened for the Victoria Day weekend include: Beothuck Park, Backside Pond, Catamaran Park, Jack's Pond, Gushue's Pond, Northern Bay Sands, Bellevue Beach, and Square Pond. Mr. Speaker, this is the first set of announcements on the outcome of the parks privatization process. We are continuing to negotiate with top-ranked proponents and will have more announcements in the coming days and weeks.

The opening dates for parks operating within our core provincial park system that will be open for this long weekend are as follows: Butter Pot and La Manche on Wednesday, May 14, and on Friday May 16, Barachois Pond, Frenchman's Cove, and Notre Dame will open. The department has issued a news release today which gives a detailed listing of the parks and the numbers of available campsites.

I also want to take this opportunity to update the Members of the House of Assembly on the status of the parks workers who were affected by this privatization process. Of the ninety-one seasonal positions, eighty-two positions were actually occupied by seasonal staff. Of that number, eighteen people have accepted retirement or exit options offered by government. Another fifty-five have been placed in other positions within the provincial park system. Government is currently in the process of placing the remaining nine seasonal employees.

Mr. Speaker, government is pleased that these new privatized parks will be in operation for what promises to be our busiest and most exciting tourism season ever. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement prior to the House opening.

Eight parks of the twenty-one announced for privatisation we now know are opening this week, the others to be announced in the further days and weeks. This information, I understood, was going to be provided to us in April. It is a little late coming.

Fifty-five employees have been placed in seasonal positions within the existing provincial parks of the ninety-one seasonal positions there. Of those I understand that the employees are supposed to get approximately twelve weeks work. That is a far cry from what they were getting under the old system.

MS KELLY: Not necessarily.

MR. OSBORNE: Not necessarily, the minister says, but some of them will. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how much those parks that are now being announced today are opening this week, how much did the government receive for those? I wonder if the minister would provide us with that information; furthermore, if she could provide us with the information that last Tuesday I believe she promised to have back to us the following day in regards to the figures on Jonathan's Pond.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave? By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The announcement by the minister of the opening of eight parks does not do justice to the program that the minister put forth earlier this year in the hopes that all of these parks would be taken up by entrepreneurs, and she does not say anything about how much money they are going to save if in fact all these people are going to be working in other jobs. It is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that a substantial number of people have been displaced or, the people that she has put in other departments or in other jobs are displacing other people or else she is not saving money at all.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing (inaudible) accomplishing in this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to ask hon. members to join with me in acknowledging National Nurses Week, May 12-18. The theme this year is "Sharing the Health Challenge". This is a most appropriate theme, Mr. Speaker, in light of the weekend's two-day health forum. As I stated following the weekend discussions, the forum provided an opportunity for all health providers to come together and identify new opportunities for team approaches to patient care. Nurses are an integral part of that team.

Nursing is the art of combining skill, education, science and nurturing. It is the art of balancing emotional care as well as physical care. Nurses are present at the bedside and in the community, they are in contact with patients and their families. Nurses are present in our hospitals and nursing homes, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, sharing critical moments in their patient's lives. In communities, nurses identify and treat health problems, and provide health education for the community as a whole. We have nurses in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and we are privilege to acknowledge our first female Sergeant-at-Arms, a registered nurse, during this Nurses Week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Nurses are aware of the need to think in broad terms of population health, healthy communities and healthy public policy.

In recent years, nurses have been faced with a changing health care environment. Even though these times are not easy times, nurses are meeting the challenges head on. Each and every nurse across this Province is committed to his or her patients and dedicated to ensuring they receive quality care. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, nurses are working together to give their input into a reformed health system.

Mr. Speaker, I believe nursing is one of society's most valuable professions. We should be proud of our 5,000 nurses across this Province; knowledgeable and dedicated health professionals with a commitment to provide the best possible care to their patients. I ask all members in this House to celebrate National Nursing Week with me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for receiving a copy of her statement. We too, minister, on this side of the House would like to join with you first of all of course in congratulating the nurses. They are the front-line workers in this Province. They are the people who are in our hospitals, who are tending to our patients, who are going bed to bed and who are working extremely hard on the front line to see that our patients are given nothing but the best of care. I guess the only hope I have is that I wish there could be more of them but we too would like to join with you and say to the nurses that we are proud of them and we are proud of the work that they do in our Province. We hope that they continue that good work and over the next several months we certainly hope that their numbers increase. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the official opposition critic in celebrating the role that nurses play in our health care system. I know that many are increasingly frustrated at the inability to provide the kind of service and caring service that they are trained to provide. I also want to note, Mr. Speaker, that the role of nurses and capabilities of nurses are not fully utilized in our health care system but nurses have many talents as is evident from the presence of the minister herself and other ministers in Cabinet and others in the House of Assembly who are playing significant roles in government as well as in health care itself. I think we should look further into the role of nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and other services that can be quite adequately and properly supplied -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - provided by nurses in our health care system.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to Oral Questions I would like to welcome to the gallery today forty Grade VII students from Coaker Academy in the district of Twillingate and Fogo accompanied by teachers Edgar Hunt, Douglas Small; chaperons Judy Dearing, Elaine Rideout and bus driver Edward Luff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to recognize a former Member of the House of Assembly who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery today, Mr. John Nolan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Oral Questions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for, I guess, the Premier or acting Premier of the Province, or maybe the acting Minister of Mines and Energy, who I understand is the Premier, so maybe the acting, acting Minister of Mines and Energy or the future Minister of Mines and Energy might answer this.

The Premier has advocated an open process for the study of a copper smelter for this Province, and he did this by providing here in the House the name of the company doing that study. Hatch and Associates are supposed to be conducting an independent study. I ask the minister whether he can confirm whether or not this company, Hatch and Associates, has already been affiliated with Inco in conducting another study for them.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Hatch and Associates have been conducting work in this Province for the past twenty years. They have done studies for the Peckford administrations, the Moores administrations; they have done studies in Labrador West; they have done studies in Long Harbour. They are currently conducting two separate pieces of work: One, their environmental services division is doing some work on the environmental assessment for the world's largest smelter and refinery at Argentia. On the other side, their non-ferrous services division has been asked to conduct a study on the feasibility of a copper smelter for our Province. We see no problem with that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make it clear, I asked the minister if Hatch and Associates is doing other work specifically for Inco in addition to the work it is doing for this government on the feasibility of a copper smelter. Is it working for Inco in some other capacity?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the only knowledge I have - and I am not in that department, but - I am aware that they are currently doing some environmental assessment work at the Argentia site for the world's largest smelter and refinery. What are they doing for government? Well, the Department of Mines and Energy has commissioned them to do an independent study, arm's length from government, to assess the feasibility and whether it is economically feasible to build a copper smelter. Are the reserves large enough so as to cause the economics to be such that we can actually construct and build a smelter here in this Province? We have asked them to do that.

We know that other studies were done by North Star and others that came up with certain conclusions, really, which were inconclusive, if you read the fine detail of those studies. So we have asked, and the Premier wants to maximize all of the benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the ways of doing that is to ensure that we secondarily process every single thing that comes out of Voisey's Bay. To do that we needed an arm's length study. Hatch is one of two worldwide that are recognized around the world for conducting these kinds of studies into the feasibility and doing the comprehensive –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - analysis required -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly, please.

MR. FUREY: - to see whether in fact this kind of facility could be feasible. We have asked them to do that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Voisey's Bay Nickel, Inco, have already indicated, they stated it isn't feasible. The Premier has said it, the former minister, Dr. Gibbons, in this House said it isn't economically viable. I'm saying if this company is working for Inco and Inco has stated that, it may compromise the position in getting an independent assessment of whether it is feasible, I say to the minister. That is a legitimate concern.

I ask the minister: Given the importance of this open process for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, would the minister table in this House the terms of reference that were agreed to between this government and Hatch Associates regarding the feasible study for a copper smelter?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Inco has said that at the outset, in the open-pit performance of the mine, and the first six years, there would be 65,000 tons annually of copper concentrates. When they move into the underground some six years later, that decreases to 55,000 tons annually. We know from Inco, we know from the Gladwin study, we know from other international studies - and we are waiting for the outcome of this study -, that for a copper smelter to be viable and economically successful it has to be 100,000 tons annually with a peak production, to make it competitive, of 150,000 tons annually. You can see by the numbers that Inco has released, that the Gladwin report has released - and we will await the outcome of Hatch -, but in the preliminary assessment you can see that we are only halfway there, it is only half feasible. So let's wait to see what the Hatch people come up with, let's wait to see what their calculations are.

With respect to the terms of reference, I would go a step further. The terms of reference, no. When the Cabinet has reviewed the Hatch report in its full context we will go a step further and release it to the full public.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they aren't prepared to release the terms of reference of an open process, the Premier, stated. There are copper smelters operating in this world with 100,000 tons and less, many substantially less, at a profit. We know Inco's position. The president of Voisey's Bay Nickel indicated to me, and the vice-president, in a meeting some of the same things that I've been told different by other people out in the industry.

It has been said here in this House before - the former Minister of Mines and Energy Dr. Gibbons said in this House back in December: Government has done research on this issue and is working with your department, Industry, Trade and Technology, he said, in doing an economic analysis of the possibility of a copper smelter. I will now ask the minister if he will table in this House a copy of that research and the economic analysis.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to table economic analysis or terms of reference while it is being conducted. I mean, if the hon. member wants to be fair and honest with the people of the Province, let the process proceed. Don't try to colour the studies and prejudge it and kill it in its tracks before we even get the thing under way. I think the hon. member is more interested in scoring political points than extracting copper and creating jobs.

I would ask the hon. member to be fair. Let the process unfold. We commit here in the House today not just to table the terms of reference, but to give a full and public reporting and accounting to all of the people of the Province on what comes out of the Hatch study.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Sometimes what hatches is what goes in, I say to the minister. That happens at times. Dr. Gibbons and the Premier stated in this House last fall - they laughed when we ask for a feasibility study, and they wouldn't (inaudible). Because Inco said it isn't viable. I say to the minister, I'm sure the minister knows if Inco itself has done a feasibility study, they would not make such a rash statement. Now, can the minister tell us whether or not he is aware that Inco has conducted their own study on the viability of a copper smelter?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that they have or they have not, I am not the Mines and Energy Minister but I can tell you that they have come up with certain premises on which they rely. They have come up with these numbers of 65,000 metric tons of the first six years in the open pit and 55,000 metric tons thereafter from the underground.

I think the hon. member is trying to hatch all kinds of conclusions; that is what he is trying to do and I would ask him to be patient, hold his peace, wait for the outcome of the study, it is being done by a world class organization with a sterling reputation. I think he would agree with that. Successive governments have used them both in Labrador West, at Long Harbour, in other projects; we think this company will come forward with an uncoloured, unbiased solid set of evidence from which we can then proceed.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He said he is not the Minister of Mines and Energy, well, who is? I want to ask questions of the Minister of Mines and Energy or the acting minister, and you represent that department I understand in the absence of the acting minister so, somebody has to answer the question.

The Premier has been trying to deter a copper smelter by saying that the nickel contaminant in the copper is actually a deterrent. When the nickel contaminant in the copper is a by-product that adds an additional positive resource -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that one of the co-discoverers of Voisey's Bay, just three days ago, re-iterated his concern that the Premier could be going against selling out and going against the government's own law, I ask the minister: Why is the Premier and why is this government continuing to use every means possible to paint a negative picture for the possibility of a copper smelter, when you should be doing otherwise?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the headlines in The Western Star today, Rock Solid; Government still wants copper smelter built here. Now, is that negative? I would ask the hon. member to be careful in his statements. It sounds to me like the hon. member wants to be negative and score cheap, political points.

What we are attempting to do, Mr. Speaker, is to line up the evidence, line up the facts, marshall those facts in our evidence and deal with the companies but, we are not going to go, Mr. Speaker, half-cooked, half-baked or half-cracked to deal with a company that will just dismiss us. We want solid evidence, solid facts so that we can sit down and deal properly and maturely on behalf of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He can read from The Western Star but I can read from Hansard when the former Minister of Mines and Energy, Dr. Gibbons, stood in this House and said: It is not economically viable to have a copper smelter in this Province. That is what the former minister said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask the minister: will the minister admit that Inco has him over a barrel on a ten-year tax holiday and now that is why you are singing Inco's tune?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are not singing any company's tune. If we were singing the company's tune, we would be back to the old days where they take the raw rock and remove it and take it out of here.

Mr. Speaker, we are singing the tune of a maximum 2,000 jobs in Labrador and the spin-off. We are singing the tune of the world's largest smelter at Argentia and refinery; that is value adding, Mr. Speaker, and we are singing the tune of having an independent, professional, world set of experts tell us whether it is economically feasible and if so, give us the evidence and the facts to marshall forward to deal with Inco.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. former minister also said, it was his mandate, Dr. Gibbons, who put in place the Hatch Study, to go out and marshall these facts. He was one of the finest Energy and Mines ministers this Province has ever seen, Mr. Speaker, so I say to him that we put the evidence together and we deal with the companies in a proper, prudent and mature fashion; not half-cocked, half-baked or half-cracked.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province want to have representation; we do not want to be paying the salary of another vice-president speaking for Inco.

I ask the minister if it is an open process and you want the people of this Province to have an opportunity, I ask you simply: Why are you hiding the Terms of Reference? Why not table the Terms of Reference so the public can know what this government has set out and what they want to find in this study?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. Leader of the Opposition listened to me earlier, but I am not prepared to play political games with Terms of Reference; to put out Terms of Reference so that he can colour them or misuse them or abuse them or create bias amongst them. I am prepared, Mr. Speaker. When the full study is conducted and completed and Cabinet has reviewed it, I am fully prepared to meet the public, this House, the Leader of the Opposition to explain to them the Terms of Reference, to allow the company to tell them how they arrived at certain conclusions and to give all findings openly and publicly to the people of this Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister today we see fishermen and fish plant workers holding demonstrations on a regular basis to bring attention to their desire to get back to work and do what they normally did all their lives, to support their families with dignity. Recently the federal Minister of Fisheries announced a small commercial test fishery on the South Coast. We continue to hear about the abundance of cod in our bays and along the North East Coast. I ask the minister, what his recommendations have been to the federal minister in relation to the reopening of the North East Coast cod fishery?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government and the position of the Province on the reopening of the 3PS fishery was the right approach, a very cautionary approach. We made a tremendous mistake in our past history -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I would not use that word.

We made a tremendous mistake in our past history on overfishing and destroying our fish stocks. We don't want to repeat that again in the future. We have had a good sentinel survey on the 3PS area, 10,000 metric ton is recommended. It will open on May 19 and I don't think anybody in the fishery or anybody in this Province will disagree with that approach. As far as the North East Coast goes, what I am recommending to the minister is have an increase in a sentinel fishery survey, not only inshore but an offshore sentinel survey to determine whether there are sufficient stocks there to have a commercial test fishery.

The one thing that I have a problem with is that the research information that has come in to the minister in the past from the scientific research, done by the boats that the government have engaged their own research, have not come up with any signs of fish. I fail to understand that because when they had the survey inshore they did not find any fish but when the sentinel fishermen went out there they found a good stock of fish in the bays and along the North East Coast. So when the information researched by the sentinel fishermen, the fishermen themselves inshore and offshore, gives us the confidence that we can have a commercial fishery, only then would I recommend that we have a commercial cod fishery, that is not to say all other species. That is just in reference to a groundfish fishery.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, fishery workers are not looking for government hand-outs and would accept fish quotas any day over TAGS cheques. We all realize that we should be very cautious about when we reopen the Northern Cod Fishery, however, sometimes we can be too cautious and have our better judgement shadowed by our fears. I ask the minister if the views and opinions of the real scientists, the fishermen, will be taken into consideration when making the important decisions on how and when to open this particular fishery?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bonavista South could not have been listening to the answer I gave to his first question. I said I did not have the confidence in the scientific information that has already come in on the offshore fishery and the - well the reopening of the cod fishery inshore or offshore on the North East Coast but I do respect the information that is coming in from the sentinel fishery which is the fishermen themselves if the hon. member does not understand that. I have also recommended to the federal minister that we should go the next step and have an offshore sentinel fishery. In fact, we went another step and said that FPI themselves, who sent the same message to the federal government, they are willing to engage their boats into an offshore fishery, in the yellow tail flounder and the other species that they are use to catching as long as scientists accompany them on the boat and document all the information in cooperation with DFO scientists and the fishermen themselves. It is the only way to get a true answer and we should never make the mistake that we made in the past and not listen to the real people, the people who have the best knowledge about the fishery are the fishermen themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister realizes that. Minister, few people in Newfoundland and Labrador really knew what the cod fishery meant to this Province until it closed in 1992. Now we know the devastation it has caused in rural areas of this Province. Minister, processors with harvesters licenses also played a part in the destruction and overfishing of our cod stocks. I ask the minister if he considers it acceptable to allow processors to simply pull up stakes and move out of towns - they have provided years of dedicated service to this particular industry - without assuming any responsibility for the devastation left behind, particularly when those same processors continue to show millions of dollars of profits on a quarterly basis?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if we, in the future - the people of this Province, the fisher people of this Province, or the processors, or anybody engaged in the industry in this Province - put their dependency on the cod fishery in the future, we are all going to be left sadly behind. Even if the codfish were teeming as they were when John Cabot first came over to Newfoundland and could dip them up in a basket, you wouldn't have the market for them.

Since the closure of the cod fishery, other species of fish have filled that gap in the market. We should never, ever do that again. The species that we should be looking at in the future, or the way we should be going in the future, is a multi-species operation, not depending on any one species of fish.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is thinking wrong. His direction is wrong, his focus is wrong, and that is the reason we have been looking at shrimp, at caplin, at crab, all species and everything that is in that ocean.

Already now this year we are starting to process male caplin. For the first time in our history we will be processing male caplin for food consumption by humans, not by animals.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, it hasn't been done. We are focused in the right direction.

What should a processor do? What can a processor do if there are no fish to process in a facility? Can we operate 212 fish plants in the future? No.

The policy of this government, which I introduced just a few short weeks ago, is sixty-five core plants, multi-species operations, established on a regional basis around this Province, not 212 or 250 or 300 plants like the former Tory government had in this Province.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question today is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

In the last few days we have been talking about rural Newfoundland, and trying to talk of positive things and so on, just to remind the minister and ask him just one question today, maybe two, on the food fishery.

Last year, if you wanted to see a morale booster in rural Newfoundland, it was when people could get in their boats and go out and jig a fish. Of course, I guess there were so many petitions presented here last year. In the last couple of weeks a lot of people in rural Newfoundland, as I travelled up and down the coast last week, were asking me about the food fishery again. It was a morale booster. The people of the Province, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, conducted themselves very well last year. I was very proud of them, and they enjoyed getting back on the water to jig a fish.

With the signs of the stocks recovering and so on, I would just like to ask the minister if he has been in consultation with the minister in Ottawa lately and what his considerations are for the food fishery for this year.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bonavista South just asked me what my recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada would be for a commercial fishery along the Northeast Coast.

We have seen demonstrations over the last number of days and weeks all around the Province of Newfoundland. We have seen people out there crying out for work, crying out for the opportunity to get back into the fishery, crying out for more money for the TAGS program to be extended. Just imagine, if we said today that we are going to allow every individual in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to go out there for recreational cod fishing, and people walking the shores with no opportunity to earn a living. If you want to create chaos, there is a good way to create chaos in this Province and turn people on.

There is a time and a place to discuss the reopening of a recreational fishery, but not at the expense of the commercial fishermen who depend on the fishery to earn a living for their families.

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

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just asked a question. Second of all, I never, ever considered a recreational fishery. All last year, through some thirty or forty petitions I presented in this House, the same argument has been - and I have talked to commercial fishermen who have agreed with me - that a food fishery last year by this Province for the people of this Province proved to be a good thing for everybody. They conducted themselves very well and they caught fish for food.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I would ask the minister about the considerations for the food fishery, and does he see any regulation change or timing for that food fishery for this year?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to second-guess the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as to what time there will be a recreational fishery this year. What I am trying to deal with, and what we are trying to put in place, is an opportunity for commercial fishermen to get back into the boats and earn a living, for those plant people who depended on the processing industry to get an opportunity to work in a fish plant.

Yes, a recreational fishery would be a good thing for this Province, a food fishery, would be a good thing for those individuals, for a weekend or two later in the fall, but we have to get our priorities straight. Where should we focus? Who should we get back on the water first to earn a reasonable living in the fishery? not only the cod fishery, the crab fishery, the shrimp fishery, the sea cucumbers, the whelk fishery, but all species. Let us talk about a commercial fishery wherever possible, so that fishermen, themselves, and plant workers, can get back into earning a living. A recreational fishery, September, October - maybe, if there are enough signs out there that give us the opportunity to have a recreational fishery, but a commercial fishery first.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the minister's statement today, I will ask the minister if she can tell us how much the Province received for each of the eight parks that were privatized and are announced for opening this week?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the process when all of the parks have been announced, we will be making a statement outlining the details of privatization.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have requested information under the Freedom of Information Act; I requested information last week that the minster promised to provide in twenty-four hours. Mr. Speaker, why can we not get any information, especially on these eight parks that are announced today for the opening later this week? Why is the minister hiding this information?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, part of the answer relates to the fact that we are still negotiating and until we are finished the whole twenty-one - eight have been concluded, and we will make a statement when we have finished the process.

In relation to the rest of his question, remember very clearly, his original request for information dealt with capital expenditures that were carried out only in the parks that were to be privatized. The hon. member did not ask for a full capital expenditure summary, detailing all the parks, and accordingly, it was not offered to him. We offered what he asked for.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will very gladly provide for the media and for every member of this House the question that I asked, the information that I requested in the Freedom of Information request, which was very plainly, the total amount of public money put into each of the parks that are up for privatization throughout the years, and that is not what the minister provided. We still do not have that information.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I see absolutely no reason -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask again: Can the minister and will the minister provide the information to the public on the eight parks that are no longer being negotiated, that are announced for opening this week?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the same answer. When the process is complete, there will be a full reporting of the process.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that not ridiculous? They sold eight parks and you cannot ask what they got for them.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

Research indicates, I say to the minister, that children who grow up poor show almost three-and-a-half times the number of conduct disorders, almost twice the chronic illnesses and more than twice the rate of school problems; hyperactivity and emotional disorders of children who are not poor.

I ask the minister, in view of the evidence, base data, that is available, what strategy she is contemplating to both intervene and to try to prevent some of these conditions from continuing and what are you going to try to do to address the issue of child poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is of uppermost concern to the Department of Human Resources and Employment is the whole issue of poverty, particularly as it pertains to children's interests. The department, myself, my official are very well aware, keenly aware, of the issue of poverty, of the impact that it has on the lives of people in this Province, and particularly on the lives of children in the Province.

We know from the Health Forum which was held this weekend that there is a real link between poverty and health. We recognize it as a determinant of health. So, in that regard, we are certainly going to be working very strenuously to address issues of poverty and child poverty. We are working on the national child benefit and, of course, the agreements that have been reached in this area. We will be developing strategies associated with this which we think we will be able to apply directly to this issue and to make gains in this area.

As I said, in all of the aspects of what the department is doing in addressing human resource development for the Province as a whole, we will be focusing quite keenly on the issue of children, on the issue of poverty as it pertains to children. We will be using all of the resources that are at our disposal, in conjunction, not only with the Federal Government, with our own resources, but also with communities and with families, to try to co-ordinate the response that takes place within this Province to enhance the lives of children, and to alleviate as much as possible the impact of poverty on their lives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

 

Notices of Motion

 

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act;

An Act To Amend The Collections Act; and,

An Act To Amend The Direct Sellers Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Amendment To The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act."

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1996," Bill 14.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Great response from this side.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave of this hon. House to present the following resolution:

WHEREAS our Province is celebrating the 500th year of discovery of Newfoundland and Labrador by John Cabot; and

WHEREAS there has been a terrific effort gone into promotion and planning for the celebration of this important milestone in our Province's, indeed the nation's, history; and

WHEREAS the members of this hon. House play a significant leadership role in their districts, and collectively for the Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all members of this hon. House actively promote these celebrations and help build on our tourism strength so that we can make this year the biggest tourism year ever for this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Petitions

 

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders who are petitioning the House to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and give our children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of child poverty was raised in Question Period by the Opposition House Leader. The new Minister of Human Resources and Employment, while commenting on her concern about child poverty, did not tell the members of the House that the number of children living in poverty has increased by 50 per cent since the Liberal Government came into power in 1989 in this Province. There has been an increase in child poverty by 50 per cent in that period from 1989 to 1995. Mr. Speaker, that was before this particular government was elected.

Now that we have a new Minister of Human Resources and Employment, I am going to ask her personally, in the House, along with the Minister of Education, to revisit this issue. The Minister of Education has, in the past, stated his support for the volunteer effort in providing school lunch and school breakfast programs throughout the Province. But the minister will know, as will the new Minister of Human Resources and Employment will know, that the volunteer effort is not and cannot be adequate to provide a proper school lunch program and a nutritional opportunity for every schoolchild in the Province.

With the announcement by government yesterday of evidence-based decision-making, I refer the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to the report presented to the government by Dr. Patricia Canning called Special Matters. That report underlined the problems of child poverty within the education system, and child hunger as a deterrent, and not only a deterrent, but as an impediment to children learning in school. If we are going to have any success in overcoming the effects of child poverty, we have to overcome the effects of child hunger on the ability of children to participate fully in the education system.

I see the Minister of Education over there bowing his head. I will not say hanging his head. He is thinking deeply about this problem because he knows that his government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on our education system, and he knows, as a result of Dr. Canning's report, that much of this money is being wasted because hungry children cannot learn. He knows that. He is trying to figure out how he can convince his colleagues in Cabinet - I think he already has the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture convinced - to support this program, and I want to give him every encouragement I can because this is a very, very important issue. Some might say it is a non-partisan issue. I cannot say that because it is a partisan issue. It is the Liberal Government that has yet to deal with this issue, and the people on this side of the House are trying to convince them to do it, so it has to be partisan until the government takes it on as a great project to ensure that schoolchildren have an opportunity to participate in the education system by having a full stomach, by being able to at least go to school knowing that they can have a meal while they are there, that they can participate in the educational program, that they can learn and better themselves and hopefully get themselves into a better situation than they find themselves in now where they are living below the poverty line, where they have inadequate diets, where they are unable to properly support their young, growing bodies and young, growing minds.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental issue of social justice. It is a fundamental issue of human hunger. It is a fundamental issue that ought to be addressed by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise again today to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

During Question Period today I was drawing some information from the proposal put forward by the Social Policy Advisory Committee in preparation for the Strategic Social Plan.

Mr. Speaker, in that particular document it does indicate, based on the research done by Dr. Canning and others, that children who grow up poor show almost three-and-a-half times the number of conduct disorders, and that is an alarming stat in itself, that poor children have a very much higher incidence of conduct disorders, three-and-a-half times their non-poor peers. Also, they have twice the chronic illnesses of their non-poor friends and peers in their school system. They also have more than twice the rate of school problems, hyperactivity and emotional disorders, as compared to those children who are not poor.

Mr. Speaker, we know from experience, if you go into a school system and look at the children who are in special education classes, and you look at their family backgrounds, you will find that there are more children in special education classes that come from poor families than there are from non-poor families. If you look at the numbers who repeat their grades, you will find again that there is a far higher incidence of that happening to families where children are living in poverty than there are in cases where the family is not living in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at all of this data... As the Minister of Health said yesterday, this government now wants to be evidence-focused in its decision-making. Well, I say to all members opposite, where can you find more evidence than we have about child poverty? We have had studies done by the Department of Education; they mentioned the Williams Royal Commission Report. We have had studies done by the Department of Health; they again turned out various reports, including Dr. Patricia Canning's report, and in the Royal Commission on Education. We have studies that have been done by social workers. We have had the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, when he was Minister of Social Services, visit the school system; and he attests to the improvements that have occurred when children had proper nutrition. There is lots and lots of evidence.

Mr. Speaker, we are not saying, in saying this, however, that all children in families who are poor encounter all of the negative problems associated with child poverty. What we are saying is that if a child is poor then the child's possibilities for reaching his or her potential is somewhat reduced. In fact, it is substantially reduced as by the data that I was quoting just a few minutes ago.

It is not satisfactory for us to tell a child: If you are born poor then you have three-and-a-half times the probability of having a conduct disorder than if you were not born poor; and it goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, these are not my words. I am not happy to stand up here and have to say these things, but it is a mandate that this government has to try to do something about child poverty. And when we hear the minister of the day saying that she is thinking about this or thinking about that, well, you know, there are 40,000 hungry children out there today who went to school and did not have enough food to eat and we are saying to them: Now, would you concentrate on your studies.

Mr. Speaker, children cannot concentrate when they are hungry, nobody can, and as a consequence I say to the government: It is time now for strong, bold action, time to do some of the things that we talk a lot about but do not do a lot about. We have children out there today - this government would not want to say that there is a crisis in child care, but there is a real problem out there and when you have one-third of your school population that is malnourished or has insufficient food, then we cannot simply say that we are fulfilling our mandate to all the children. And we know that children are not adequately represented in the corridors of power, children do not have a vote; and the only power base they have is the advocacy they get from their parents and from community groups and from us here in the House. So I say to the government, the evidence is there, it shows that we should have something done, it is time now to do something about it and have more programs in place for this coming September.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of eighty residents of the community of Jamestown. The petition reads:

Due to the deplorable condition of the gravel road in Jamestown, we, the undersigned, make petition to have the 2.6 kilometres of gravel road in Jamestown paved.

You notice, Mr. Speaker, they did not ask to have it upgraded and paved; the road has already been upgraded but they need to have it paved. Here is a situation, Mr. Speaker, once again, similar to the petition that I presented here in the House yesterday from the residents of Winter Brook. This is the community that is next to Winter Brook, I would say, about five kilometres away from the community of Winter Brook and it is another area where the pavement had stopped right at the intersection of Jamestown and Winter Brook. The main street through this particular community, the little fork in the road was allowed to be left unpaved and the eighty residents, Mr. Speaker, who signed this petition are asking - a simple request - that the road through their community be paved. They are asking that because they are fed up with the dust and the dirt and the pot holes that they have been subjected to, and have had to drive over all their lives. The price people pay today through taxes and licences for their vehicles, taxes on the insurance for their vehicles, registration for their vehicles should certainly allow people the opportunity to drive over a decent road.

Normally, what you see in a community is that people do not usually take pride in it until the road is paved. I have noticed that in a lot of rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. The thing that causes people to take pride in their communities is a little bit of pavement. Mr. Speaker, in this particular community, people have taken pride while awaiting their community roads to be paved. The houses in this particular community are well-kept, well-maintained, a very picturesque, pretty, little community, but the people living there cannot open their windows in summer, cannot put clothes on the line in the summer, if they do, they will be subjected to the dust and the dirt or the calcium that is tracked in over the kitchen floor every time they use those particular roads.

Mr. Speaker, they are not looking for anything out of the ordinary, it is a basic request; they are not looking for sidewalks or a stadium or a civic centre. The one, little request is: to have government look at the deplorable condition of the 2.6 kilometres of gravel road leading through their community and ask to have it paved. There does not need to be any upgrading done; all it needs, Mr. Speaker, is Class A stone put on the surface and pavement laid after that. It is a simple request, and I ask the government and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to pay attention to this particular petition and do whatever can be done to provide those responsible residents in the community of Jamestown the same opportunity that they see in every other town and every other community in that particular area that they drive through; that is, Mr. Speaker, pavement on their local roads.

I do not know how the Department of Works, Services and Transportation can even justify not paving this particular section of road when you consider the cost that must be involved in maintaining it in a different way, with different equipment than is brought forward and travelled down on a regular basis from the depot up in Lethbridge by the mere fact of it being a dirt road.

So, I ask the minister if he would pay attention to the people here and if he would see fit to visit this particular area, see exactly what the residents are talking about and hopefully, include funding in his budget to have this particular road paved so that the residents of this particular community might at least enjoy basic necessities in the world we live in today.

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

MR. SHELLEY: On another petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is not speaking in support of the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South, he is presenting a new petition.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today - and I am glad the Minister of Education is in the House because I am going to present a very serious petition from students of H. L. Strong Academy in Little Bay Islands. I will read the petition first and then make some comments.

To the hon. House of Assembly: We, the undersigned students of H. L. Strong Academy, Little Bay Islands, hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to reconsider the unnecessary and extreme cuts being made to the educational field. These cuts will have long-lasting detrimental effects on us, the students of this Province. As a result of these cuts, our school is losing a half special needs unit. We are a small school with a population of twenty-seven students from Kindergarten to Level III. Many of us are receiving special help. This unit in our school is essential and the loss of it will negatively affect us, both in the short and long term.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition - I have had some discussions back and forth with Ms Kim Locke who has kept in touch with me and also, I have a letter here from the Mayor of Little Bay Islands, Mr. Speaker. This community is very heavily affected, the whole community - not just the school, the community itself - by this particular cut of the half unit. Although that might not seem like a lot to some schools, some of the big schools here in St. John's and other parts of the Province, but that half unit to H. L. Strong, Mr. Speaker, means a lot to these students, to the teachers and to the community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I will just read from one of the letters that was sent to Mr. Grimes, to the minister, from the Education Action Committee chairperson, Ms Kimberly Locke. It states here in the letter that they wrote, `It is only with the reinstatement of the programs we have lost over the last two years that our students can even hope to get a quality of education equivalent to that of other schools in this Province. Our special needs teacher - and I would like to point this out to the minister while he is here in the House - our special needs teacher has contributed tremendously to the functioning of the school. Since she was hired, she has been doing full time work for half time pay.' She is the one apparently in the library all the time, who does all the work there. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also inform the minister that she is the only qualified substitute teacher there.

Mr. Speaker, Little Bay Islands is, of course, an island and it has a very specific problem when it comes to geography, when it comes to the students and so on. It is an essential school and the K -Level III with some twenty-seven students, calls for this special needs teacher. They have already seen the cuts, Mr. Speaker, and they have tightened their belts. They have lost their music teacher, physical education teacher and so on. And Mr. Speaker, I have some major problems with it when they start losing those things because that is what schools are made of. Yes, we like to have the math, the English, the reading and so on, but these special needs teachers, art teachers, physical education and so on is what makes the heart of the school and these people are putting forward a very strong case.

All students in the school have signed it. I also have petitions from parents. I have a letter from the Mayor, Elaine Simms of the town of Little Bay Islands and, Mr. Speaker, the whole community is behind this. So I am going to ask the minister to very seriously consider this request. As a matter of fact, I will ask right here in the House today, a follow-up meeting to speak with the minister, hopefully even today. That is how serious I think it is, Mr. Speaker, that I should talk to him today. We should discuss the situation with respect to H. L. Strong and how important this particular half unit is to this school. It is not just a half unit that is not going to see an effect. It is going to see an effect largely on the people who are most vulnerable and who need the help more than any of us, the people who are disabled in our society.

So, Mr. Speaker, this half unit strikes at the heart and the core of this school, a very proud, very good school that has turned out some fantastic students who have gone on to be successful producers in society.

So, Mr. Speaker, education on Little Bay Islands has a particular twist to it because it is isolated, of course with respect to it being an island, but that school has turned out some very good students and this half unit for these students here is very important not just to the disabled students at the school, but to the entire school. This teacher, from what I hear, has done more than her share and also helped a lot of students alone the way.

So, I strongly urge the minister and his department to have a look at this situation and I will follow up with the meeting with him today, hopefully and talk about this urgent matter and hopefully get a positive response for the people at H.L. Strong and I also would like to commend the action group for taking such time to keep in contact with me and get their views heard here in the House of Assembly, that is what we are hear for and I am glad we could get those points out to the minister while he is in the House today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the member for Baie Verte.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I happened to have come across some correspondence relative to this particular school and in particular some information relative to a specific child. In this particular case the school principal is indicating that without support for this particular child that that child's education program is going to be in serious jeopardy.

This school does not have the option of going and saying: we can send this child to a nearby school. This is the only school that is there, it is the only choice they have. Therefore, the alternative would be to move this child and the family to somewhere or have the child go back and forth to the community that is a fair distance away and of course you have to go across the water. That is not satisfactory.

When we talk about children here, we are talking about equality of opportunity and why should this young child who goes to this particular school have to say: I cannot have these services because my parents live on an island and I cannot have the special teacher who is able to bring me along and to be able to provide some semblance of an opportunity for this young child and for his parents to be able to see that his education is progressing in some meaningful manner.

Mr. Speaker, there are two problems here. One is this particular child, it is a fact that we put this child back into a regular classroom with a child who is not able to function properly, the impact that it is going to have on the other children. So, we have a double edged negative sword here, where the child is going to be unhappy because of the fact that the child is loosing the special needs teacher that he has been able to have access to over the last numbers of years. Secondly, the other parents are going to be unhappy because you are going to have a child that is going to school and with every possibility, every expectation is that the child will become more disruptive and dysfunctional. There is a very high risk here for the individual child that has the disability and there is a very high risk for the other school children, as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Education, that we have made some big changes in education. I am one who has been on record as saying, I am very proactive when it comes to changes for the better, but I also have to draw the ministers attention, we have a lot of small schools out there and we cannot jeopardize the education of the children because they happen to live on an island and they are in an isolated area of the Province.

So, we need a strong small school policy and a child centre policy that address the special needs of children like the children who go to the school in Little Bay Islands attending H.L. Strong Academy.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge the House to look at the human aspects of taking away this teacher and to look at the children themselves and ask yourself the very basis question, is this fair to the child and fair to the family that is involved?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply to consider the head under order 2(a) starting with Executive Council. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I would move at this time that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., and that we would maybe move from 6:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. and maybe let the parliamentary clock run again, as we did yesterday evening. Could we do that? Can we have that agreement today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I'm sure he did. Do we have that agreement again?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Opposed?

Carried.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the Minister of Justice is going to be substituting for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Under Executive Council, I'm just going to flip through some of the headings here, and any particular questions that - I'm sure the minister has notes available on most of these.

Under Premier's Office, 2.1.01, under Transportation and Communications, and I guess travel expenses for the Premier that are covered by the public treasury, I guess they are all under Transportation and Communications. Would I assume that is correct, or are there other expenses that are not included under this heading?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So maybe I could just ask a few questions and then give you an opportunity to respond, rather than run down through dozens of questions at the one time, if that is possible.

I'm sure the minister has available too, under this heading, all the trips that the Premier has taken at public expense, we will say, in the last fiscal year. He should have a breakdown of those. I'm sure they must be available because I know I heard them mentioned. I even heard them in the media, I heard them on radio one morning, reference to trips. I'm sure there must be a detailed account of all the Premier's travel expenses. I would certainly be interested in seeing a copy of that. I know it isn't a big number to tabulate. That should be done very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, while you have mentioned that now, I certainly would like a breakdown of his expenses related to his travel. I think that is only appropriate. Hotel and other basic costs of travel. I'm sure it is in the public interest to the Province to know how much our Premier is spending, how he is spending it, where he is spending it, and other related costs pertaining to that. I heard in the media it was about $100,000 for the year. I'm wondering if that is just his travel. Does that include his hotel and meals and basic other costs? I would be interested in getting the details on that. While he is there he has rented cars and all other things. Yes, and I've already asked: Could I assume it is all under subitem .03 under the Premier's Office? We would be interested in knowing.

Maybe the minister could tell us too, while we are on travel, has he any more excursions planned on his Churchill Falls trips around the world? I know he started off he was going to do very extensive travelling. When he got to his secret little paper in Montreal he found the document that has been around that said nothing. I guess all the air came out of the balloon and he had to follow up with a couple of other engagements. It wasn't the worldwide excursion he was planning on. I'm just wondering if there are some other costs and planned costs in that particular area that he is planning on expending.

Also, I would be interested in knowing, when he travelled last year to Hamilton to campaign with Sheila Copps, on that date, did the Province pay for that or was it paid by the Liberal Party?

I guess, for that matter, when he went up to fund-raise in New Brunswick - I know I was in Ottawa at the time on this education issue - and he didn't come back. He had to go to a fund-raising dinner the next day in New Brunswick. Those related costs for the New Brunswick Liberal Party, I am certainly interested in the expenses there, if the taxpayers paid for those, or whether they were paid or reimbursed for political purposes, and if they are located here under this item under the Premier's Office, or if the Premier, like the former Premier when he travelled, does he charge it off to tourism when it is a tourism venture? Does he charge it off to some other department if it is in industry, trade and technology? In industry, trade and technology, the travel budget is probably big enough, I say to the minister. I am not sure if there is any more room to push a few more dollars in there. I think that is pretty well full, but we would certainly be interested in knowing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Member for Baie Verte (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There couldn't be a better return on your investment. The trip that he took, I say to the Member for Baie Verte, when he went to Italy he brought back seventy-five and possibly 200 jobs. I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: List out all of the jobs you brought back. Can you tell us where they all are? We should be sending the Member for Baie Verte more often. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should be inviting the Member for Baie Verte to accompany him, because everything he touches turns to gold. Good advice, I am sure, for the minister. I am sure the minister, in his travel... We dealt with that in industry, trade and technology; I won't get into that at the moment.

Certainly with reference to those expenses, I am not sure whether the minister wants to respond to any of these before we build up too many of these questions.

Also, I would like to ask the minister - he should know this one offhand, I think - under allowance and assistance here in item 9, under the Premier's Office, I would assume that is the $20,000 entertainment allowance that is given to the Premier - would that be correct - to entertain in his home?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That would be correct? Why was it $23,500 last year?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He said he didn't have a home to entertain in - he told us that all during the year - and he gets more. In that case he was doing a bit of shuffling back and forth. I am interested in why it is up to $23,500. Did we spend an extra $3,500 for the Premier when it was generally agreed that he would get an extra $20,000; and now it is down to $20,000 this year. It certainly wasn't a budget, I can assure you, for the Leader of the Opposition. They don't give us a budget for those things, as the minister is quite aware. Why was that increased?

Also, I asked, in item 09 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, why was it up from $20,000 for entertaining in his home to $23,500 when the Premier hasn't been in his home very much to entertain. You have to spend a lot of money to spend $23,500 to entertain in your home when you are only in your home probably fifty or 100 times a year, or less. That is a big price.

I am just wondering, too, if this includes cleaning, upkeep, renovations, catering, any other activities in the Premier's personal home, or is this just a straight, outright, non-accountable expense? I am understanding that it is an unaccountable expense; he doesn't have to substantiate it with costs, that he is just given a $20,000 cheque to entertain or not to entertain and he still gets the money. We would certainly be interested in having a response to that.

Of course, we have had a very significant increase, as I just mentioned, a really big increase, a 15 per cent increase basically, or more, in the cost of that amount there. I would certainly like a justification there.

We saw a reduction in Transportation and Communications of $51,000. I mean, this Premier has travelled more extensively than any other premier. He is in Ottawa again today. He is in Europe, he went to Vancouver, went to Ottawa for the announcement of the federal election, then he went to Vancouver, then he went to Bristol, then he went to Aberdeen, then he came back again. Now he is gone to Ottawa again. How would we spend $51,000 less on a budget like that? It must be included somewhere else. I can't see it all being included there, so a breakdown of that item would be much appreciated.

I know the Premier doesn't use a car and personal chauffeur any more, but I'm sure there are some -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Anybody who smokes long cigars they should pay for them themselves, I say to the minister. They shouldn't have taxpayers of the Province paying for the cigars. If he uses a chauffeur, how often, what arrangements, what costs? Are we still picking up a cost associated with chauffeuring? I would like to know what the cost is. I might add, there are occasions when the Premier does need to have that service. I don't deny that right.

I will certainly give the minister some time to respond there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is asking for some expenses, of course, which I'm not carrying around in the back of my head, and I will undertake to get them for him over the next matter of hours.

The Premier's travel, as he pointed out, is recorded there. There are two sections. There is the $16,700, which is up $500 from last year, and then under the Premier's Office there is Transportation and Communications, which is down by $51,000. The hon. member seems to be suggesting that there is probably travel hid away somewhere else. I will undertake to get the actual travel. The member wants the number of trips last year. I don't have that in the back of my head either.

The future for the Churchill Falls plan. I'm not sure how much of that we are prepared to make public at this time, but it is a matter which is still under consideration by government, and we certainly hope to deal with that. The Hamilton trip campaigning for Sheila Copps. I'm not sure that the Premier was even campaigning for Sheila Copps. I think he happened to be in the area at the time, and the same with the fund-raising in New Brunswick. I will certainly undertake to get that for him.

The $20,000 allowance. That was brought in when the former Premier Wells was the premier. I remember it was strongly supported by Opposition members at the time. Because it was costing us a considerable amount of money, whenever visiting dignitaries had to be entertained by the Premier, to take them down to the Newfoundland Hotel or the Radisson or whatever. It was costing an extreme amount of money. Premier Wells started the practice of inviting them into his house, and Premier and Mrs. Tobin are doing the same thing.

Prior to that, when dignitaries visited, quite often they were taken out and entertained. or in some cases they were even taken to the private dining room which former governments had. It was started by Mr. Smallwood and it was not - although during the campaign Mr. Moores and those did use it in their campaign, and criticised it, they somehow overlooked closing the private dining room. Quite out of character of course for Mr. Peckford, he too kept the private dining room alive, and it was not until Mr. Wells came in that the private dining room was closed down.

I should tell hon. members that just after the government changed my colleagues who are sitting here today took over the old offices, and some of the standing orders that we found in the ministers' offices, in the Premier's office, were quite something. Standing order for liquor, standing order for special fish out of Fishery Products International, standing orders for cases of cigarettes, standing orders for cigars, you know. I don't think we will find any of these standing orders left because we have a much more efficient government.

I will make the details available to the hon. member over the next few hours, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister has provided some background information on what was spent here in the dining room, on liquor, cigarettes, cigars and whatever. It is something that I do not support or we do not support, and we have it indicated. If anyone did spend money on cigars out of taxpayers' money, they should have to pay for it and reimburse themselves. Is the minister implying that when dignities come in now they go to the Premier's home, they are wined and dined there, they do not go to a hotel? They are not entertained anywhere else? Is that what the minister is telling us? If they are going to be entertained in the Premier's home, the Premier will not be there most of the time I can tell him. The Premier will not even be there - he will be in Japan and China and Vancouver. And he was campaigning with Sheila Copps. It was carried on television. I saw him there and I saw him speaking at a fund-raising Liberal dinner the day after I was in Ottawa with him, I say to the minister. And we should know if the taxpayers are paying for those trips, that is all I am asking, no big deal. If Peckford did something that he should not have done, he should be held accountable. It is the right thing. I did not support giving an unaccountable $20,000 to the Premier. I recognize the right -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know. I cannot speak for everybody. I can only speak for myself and my caucus. I am the longest serving member here, out of ours, so anybody else who came here after me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, exactly. No, I am the longest serving here out of the nine of us, and I am not bragging about it at all, maybe I am complaining about it. I am just saying - I indicate that I do not have any problem when the Premier entertains in his home, dignitaries into this Province. I do not have a problem with his getting reimbursed for those expenses. It is only right. It is only to be expected and he should not have to bear that personal cost - that is what I am stating. But there is an increase of 17.5 per cent last year to entertain in his home. He either did a lot of entertaining when he was here - and the minister said he would provide some information on it.

I certainly hope that the information will be provided, so that we will know why it has increased, why this Premier is a more expensive Premier, why he is more lavish than others, why he spends so much time entertaining here in the Province when he is not even in the Province very much. That does not figure. He either has expensive tastes - maybe the $300 or $400 bottles of wine instead of the normal regular one. If that is the type of entertainment -

Maybe the minister can tell us, too, if the Premier has any particular services like a bodyguard, that we pay certain costs there. That is something that we should be aware of, if there are costs incurred in those areas. I am sure the minister can respond to that, too, in due course.

Under Premier's Office: we do know that the Premier, on his short stint in Ottawa as a Cabinet Minister, spent $140,000 on renovating his office in a short period of time. He spent more money on office furniture than the Prime Minister, bigger travel budget than the Prime Minister. I am just wondering if any work has been done in his office since he took over here? Is it included? Where is it located, the details and the costs? Are they in the Premier's office subhead here or where are they located?

In Executive Council: I ask the minister, Has there been any renovations in Executive Council? It is my understanding that the policy analysis branch was moved down to the ground floor from the tenth floor - I believe it was located there. So if the minister could inform us, basically the details of that move and what the total costs associated with it are - maybe the bill for the whole thing.

Maybe he could give us an overall figure of what it cost to renovate - actually, from the sixth floor up to the eleventh has been changed over the past few years, all those floors - an estimate of what those costs were, so we can have an idea of what the expenditures have been specifically in those areas. We know lots of expenses are justified and they have to be dated. We do not doubt that at all, but there has to be accountability, too, on expenditures of public dollars.

I ask the minister if any of the furnishings in the Premier's office have been replaced, if there are costs incurred in those specific areas. As has happened in a lot of cases in the past, maybe some of the old material was moved out that was not necessarily old. The former Premier, I remember, changed the whole ceiling and had a tremendous amount of work done in his office to add to the decor to his liking. I am wondering whether this Premier is in that category, that he spends sufficient time here that he needs to have office changes and adjustments. If so, what has the cost has been for that? Sometimes I know minor changes normally occur. I am not really interested in those minor, little, nitty-gritty details, but in any renovations of a significant nature involving thousands of dollars - if it is being done. I ask the minister, too, if the Executive Council has recently renewed lease space for offices anywhere in the Province under these particular headings in this part of the Budget. I will certainly give the minister an opportunity to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR DECKER: The hon. member asked about a bodyguard. I remember, first when I was elected and was in Opposition, I was trying to figure out what the ghost car was doing parked in Premier Peckford's parking space. He used one of those armoured cars with the flashing lights hidden under the bumpers and he used to have a bodyguard. We have not - unless there has been some change in the last twenty-four hours, there has not been any perceived need as to why the Premier should have a bodyguard. He does not have a bodyguard, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. If that is wrong, I will certainly take it under advisement.

From time to time, whether you are a Premier or a Cabinet Minister or just a member of this House, if there were any threat on your life or anything, the police themselves would decide whether or not it would be in the interest of the person who is threatened to provide a bodyguard, but that has not been necessary since Mr. Tobin has been Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is listening outside - I know he had to leave for a few minutes. But, I go up to the Premier's office, like most ministers, on an average of probably a couple times a month, or maybe more often than that, and I can assure the hon. member that there are no renovations to the Premier's office since he has taken office in February of last year. As a matter of fact, the exact, same furniture is there now that Premier Wells had, and I would think some of that furniture goes way back to former Premiers. So, no, there are no major expenses. I do not know - there might be a few minor things of which I am not even aware. The hon. member said he was not concerned about minor details. I cannot answer for what the Premier might have done when he was a minister in Ottawa. I think that was dealt with on a different level.

The Executive Council did move from one place to another and except for the ordinary costs of moving, there were no major expenses there, to my knowledge. The hon. member asked about some new space; he wanted to know if there is any new space being leased for any additional changes or any additional space required, and he is probably referring to page 21 under 2.4 (01) Executive Support. I think it has been made public that the Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, which we did not fund for a full year last year, we have funded that but we are using the same space that we used last year for that, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I heard the minister mention, when I was coming in - I did not catch it completely, but under I think, Aboriginal Affairs, he made some reference?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. That is right. I guess the reason for the new cost there would be that there has been a new position created, as I am sure he is well aware.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) that is why there is $324,000 this year versus $299,000 last year, but last year it was only funded for part of the year and this year it is going to be a full year funding.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is my understanding - I looked at the salary book there - there is a deputy minister status in there, an extra salary brought in last year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Last year. when the new secretariat was set up there had to be a person in charge of it and that was done last year, but the reason the amount is a little more this year is because it is funded for the full year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is mentioned there under the Secretary to Cabinet $100,445 listed in the salary details, would be the salary (inaudible) which would be deputy minister status, basically.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: I would assume, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe the minister, when he gets a minute, would give us an update, especially in this area, what is happening with land claims, aboriginal claims, and particularly as it relates to Voisey's Bay, because that is an area of great concern here in the Province. The Province is eager to move forward. We do not want to see things stalled here. There are a lot of jobs depending on that opportunity, and the faster we can get it moving the better it can be for the economy of our Province. So, when the minister gets a moment he might give us an update on that.

Intergovernmental Affairs: In that area, too, are there particular - that is on page 19, I just skip back there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 20 or 19?

MR. SULLIVAN: Page 19 - it carries over on page 20; if there are plans or what is allocated in terms of coming up this year, like a First Ministers' or the Premiers Atlantic Provinces, the New England - in that area, you could update us on what exactly is upcoming under that aspect this year compared to last year. Because they are normally - the Premiers and the Governors, is that every two years, a bi-annual conference, rather than an annual one?

So, if the minister could take a moment just to update us on those two items in Intergovernmental Affairs: what is happening in terms of conferences, whether it is the Maritime, the New England one, the First Minsters here or the Premiers just in Atlantic Canada, etc. and aboriginal land claims - maybe an update overall and the budget implications of that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member is probably aware, the land claims, there was a little bit of a problem there for a while and the Premier suggested that negotiations would be - What is the right word? not `halted', but they were interrupted for a period for both parties to regroup. Generally speaking, on most issues, land claims are progressing quite well. There is a genuine desire on both sides to speed up the land claims, especially with the Labrador Inuit Association. A few weeks ago there was an interpretation, but since then it has been agreed that land talks will resume and the Labrador Inuit Association, when their board met just recently, they gave the go-ahead for their negotiators to resume negotiations. So I would think over the next little while negotiations will resume again.

In Intergovernmental Affairs, last year was a pretty busy year for Newfoundland. Every year, the Premiers, the First Ministers, meet somewhere in the country, or when the Prime Minster is not present, they go from province to province. Last year, we had the meeting of the Premiers for all of Canada. They met here, and the Premiers and the New England Governors also met here. Now, it will be another ten years before that rolls around again, so that is not anticipated this year, to the best of my knowledge. I think I have covered all the points.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: With respect to page 15, I just flip back to my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South's favourite aspect. Did the government carefully consider options to operating Government House, the Lieutenant-Governor's official residence? Because I know at the time of the swearing-in ceremony, I was asked a question there and had a particular comment at the time and the Premier did indicate to the media at that time: Now is not the time to discuss that. So he certainly gave the implications that it is on the front burner and it is being discussed.

I am certainly interested in knowing if that is being pursued. If it is being pursued, it may have certain value, certain aesthetics, history and pomp, to it, rather than the economics of it. If that be the case, has there been some effort to maintain that with help, other than from our Treasury? Whether it be the Federal Government, whether it be the British Crown or whatever, if we are going to maintain - I am sure they would be quite interested in contributing to that cause.

We see constitutionally why a Lieutenant-Governor must be there, and that is something that cannot be addressed here in our Province. Of course, the salary is covered by the Federal Government. But with reference to staff and support and location, these can vary from province to province, depending upon the ability of the province to be able to pay and what its priorities in spending are. I am certainly interested in knowing about those particular aspects.

There seems to be just a slight increase here in salary. From last year, it went up from budgeted to actual, $19,000, and we have an increase of another $20,000 this year. There has been an increase in that area. When the minister stands he probably could tell us why there has been a jump in salary in this item, and why there is an increase in cost of Government House as opposed to last year, whether it has to do with Cabot 500 or whatever.

Also, I guess, basically, Cabot 500, what costs are associated with the Royal Visit? Does the Province cover, and which ones is it not going to cover? Is the Premier anticipating a major increase in his travel budget basically also because of this? Extra Protocol -if I remember correctly, last year, Protocol was moved out of Executive Council. It used to be in Executive Council, I think, up to a year ago or more, and then last year I think they moved it from Executive Council and placed it under the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment. I am just wondering what the specific plans are there.

We have Purchased Services, as we see here, under Protocol. We have a big increase. I imagine a lot of that has to do with the Cabot 500, that has to do with the Queen's visit here. When I was in Happy Valley - Goose Bay last week, I heard a figure that just the cost - I think the Queen is going to be attending there in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. The cost is in the tens of thousands of dollars just to go in and out of there.

Maybe if I could leave it with those two items. The Lieutenant-Governor, Government House, we will say, and the Protocol aspect. The minister could just enlighten us a little on that and put some information regarding those two headings.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked about Government House. This has been a favourite whipping boy for the longest time. Members have been suggesting that maybe we should not be having our Lieutenant-Governor reside in Government House. As the hon. member knows, I am sure, across the country, many of the provinces do have the Lieutenant-Governor living in his own private residence, and then to perform various functions of state, he will do that either in some special building, in the House of Assembly, or some rental space.

I remember when the question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition at the time of our swearing in. Under Program Review, when we looked at all the government expenses, as the hon. member points out, the Federal Government pays the salary and some of the support expenses for the Lieutenant-Governor. However, it is the Province which must pay for the residence and the upkeep of the residence and all that sort of thing. One of the things we did look at was whether or not we would ask the Lieutenant-Governor - and in view of the fact that a new Lieutenant-Governor was being appointed - whether we would ask that he would live in his own house and maybe keep a part of Government House for various functions, or have him use the House of Assembly.

When we sized it all up, we came to the conclusion that even if the Lieutenant-Governor did not live in that building, the Province would still have to maintain it. You could not let the place fall to the ground. It has a history that goes back into the last century. I am not sure, if you put it on the market, that there would be a line-up of people wanting to buy Government House as a residence, or for any conceivable reason. It is definitely a part of our heritage, so we cannot just allow the building to disintegrate. We cannot allow the building to stay there unless we maintain it. So the cost, I believe, and I stand to be corrected, was close to $300,000 just to maintain the residence if there were nobody living in it. We would have to do the grounds; we would have to keep the heat and light on; we would have to have staff there twenty-four hours a day, around the clock, to protect it from vandalism and all of that. When we looked at the cost of maintaining an empty building, we came to the conclusion that we would not be saving very much money if the Lieutenant-Governor lived in his own house, as do some Lieutenant-Governors in the country.

The member is quite right when he picks up the extra costs of protocol. That has to do with the official visit by Her Majesty this summer because of the Cabot Celebrations. Virtually all of the costs, the increases under this page, under the Executive Council, the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment, are related to the Queen's visit and the Cabot Celebrations.

The member asked about who pays, and the reality is that when the Queen visits Canada, Canada pays for most of it. Then, if she makes trips to various provinces, the provinces do pick up a proportion of that visit.

The hon. member talked about the Happy Valley trip. The itinerary has not been fully put in place yet and we are not sure as to whether or not that part of the trip will be taking place, but we do know that there was substantial cost involved there had she gone in, and that part of it is being reviewed. It has not been decided yet, but I suppose the short answer is that Canada will pay the bulk cost. She is the Queen of Canada, and when she comes to Canada, Canada is responsible for the cost of bringing her here. The same was true with the other countries of the world, of the Commonwealth, where they recognize Queen Elizabeth as their Queen -the country takes responsibility - but then we, being a Province of Canada, of course, and she is coming here specifically for our celebrations this year, we will be expected to pick up part of that cost.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 16, under Cabinet Secretariat, there is an increase in salaries from $639,000. It was projected last year at $660,000 but was $639,000 and is back up to $660,000. Why would the particular salary be increased there? I do not know if there is any particular change in the numbers of executive support. I have not looked at the specific numbers from the details; I just went through generally in comparison to the Departmental Salary Details.

I understand, the salary for the Clerk of the Executive Council and Secretary to Cabinet was, I think, increased last year, but that only took effect about a year ago, anyway, so that should not be changed substantially from last year to this year. That is about the same, I would assume, so I do not think it would be attributable to that particular source only. There should be some others.

Looking at Executive Council, an increase of $21,000 basically, it is about a 3.- some per cent increase. Maybe the minister might be able to let us know: Have there been changes overall, maybe step progressions under the Hay system? I was just wondering. I guess they have been occurring, I would assume, on an ongoing basis, their step progressions. I know there have not been wage increases as such, but I would assume some of it could be attributable there, and whether a 3.5 per cent increase would be relegated to this particular section. Maybe that is the reason; I do not know. I am sure the minister could let us know, too, when he speaks, whether their different steps on the progression there are accountable for some of those salary increases, where there are increases.

I understand, too, that even though the salaries are locked in here, they are in the Estimates, the salary detail book does not correspond with the Estimates because, it is my understanding, probably in doing the detail book, the positions that are going to be retained within each department and where they are going to be moved was not determined, basically, over all, probably, the specifics, when the Budget was brought down, and what effect it is going to have in replacing people through the bumping process and how they might be allocated, whether that had an impact. Because you cannot get a balance on the numbers here and here in the book. Whether that is part of the reason...

I am sure government knew when they set down their salary allocations how many they were going to retain within that specific division or that particular department, or under Executive Council here. I am sure that should have been determined, and there should be a very close estimate. It is just that the Salary Details did not follow in line with that. What the reason is, I do not know. I do not know if the minister can provide it, but they do not balance. They do not check out, in other words.

Also, just turn to page 24. Under the public sector negotiations, which specific ones is government preparing for here? I understand there is a fair number of contracts. I think my colleague - are there twenty-some - I am not sure what the specific numbers are under the collective bargaining process to be negotiated. I am not sure exactly what the details for upcoming negotiations are, but funding has dropped. Is there reason to believe now that there are not going to be much negotiations? There is a small drop, I know, here under President of Treasury Board, from Transportation and Communications and some other related costs. Purchased Services costs are down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you now?

MR. SULLIVAN: 3.1.01, on the top of page 24. Does that mean we are going to turn the clock back, we are not going to have any negotiating? The minister knows all about that, I am sure. He is an expert on that legislation. Was it Bills 16 and 17, I believe, and whatever else? Then we had to come in with, what - Bill 64, to try to do a little bit of balancing there. Does it mean that the day of collective bargaining is over now and we are just going to tell everybody what they are going to get and no negotiations in the process?

A couple of points. Maybe the minister can just update us a little on what is happening under those items.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member refers to Executive Support and the reduction in salary last year, and we are back up now. The actual amount is $660,200. That is what we have been budgeting for some years. Last year, there was a brief period of time when there was a vacancy there, and that picks up the $21,000 that you are talking about. That has subsequently been filled and we are back to the $660,200, and we will continue with that.

The member spoke about step progressions. The whole civil service is entitled to step progressions, whether you are in the union or whether you are not. Even though previous Administrations - we did, out of necessity, have to put wage freezes on. We were able to maintain the step progressions. People who have not reached the top step have indeed been getting step progressions.

The member talks about negotiations, collective bargaining. He is quite right. We do have a lot of the contracts which have expired and are up to be renegotiated. I know the teachers' contract is up to be renegotiated, and NAPE, and a whole lot of contracts. I can tell the hon. member that we certainly have no intention of overruling any contracts and negotiations. Negotiation will take place. As the hon. member knows, we are a government who have no intention or desire to ride roughshod over our employees. We have the utmost respect for them. We certainly will negotiate hard and we will expect them to negotiate hard and at the end of the day we will reach a contract that both parties can live with. We will be more than pleased to live by the contract that we negotiate, Mr. Speaker, but we are not going to - we are spending taxpayers money so government is obligated to make sure that we can get the services at the least possible cost to taxpayers. Union representatives are concerned with their membership and they want to make sure that they get the best possible remuneration and the best possible contract that they can get for the membership. That is the essences of collective bargaining, where the two parties sit down and negotiate as equals. At the end of the day you arrive at a contract and you live by that contract and this government is most anxious to continue with the negotiations with all of our employees, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well now wasn't that a brilliant speech for the minister who sat and voted and presided over stripping contracts? He negotiated in good faith, turned around then and turned the clock back, tore up those contracts and said what we gave you we are not going to honour now and brought legislation in this House. To have the audacity and the face to stand up here seriously and keep a serious face on him and tell us that they are going to negotiate in good faith. Now minister, don't try to sell that to us and don't try to sell it to the people of the Province. The people of the Province have all kinds of faith in your negotiations and all types of your tactics and history will show it. The evidence is there in legislation. Talk to the groups out in the Province, the public sector unions in the Province who had to negotiate with this government and the previous government in particular and they will find out that what the minister is saying is not something that he practices. It is something he preaches but it is not something he practices. So let practice speak. Let not speech dictate that what actually occurs in practice be the determining factor and let people draw their conclusions on that, not what the minister likes to tell us. I told him before, he is the best actor on that side of the House. He has not had a chance to do as much acting lately but he is the best actor over there. When the time comes he can put off a good show.

I am just wondering, page 23 deals with the Women's Policy office, there is a reduction of about $100,000 on a budget of $660,000. So we have a substantial reduction in budget, a 15 per cent reduction in budget there. I ask the minister, is that indicative of his government's effort to enhance economic and social status of women in this Province by cutting their budget by almost $100,000? Cutting Salaries by $60,000? Cutting Purchased Services, an extra - and in that too there could be certain contractual services and other arrangements because it is very difficult to pinpoint exactly what goes out in salary. Of course there are contractual arrangements there and there is a significant reduction. Overall in the Women's Policy office, in particular Women's Policy period, there is a reduction also in total.

The total to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has been maintained, the same amount but the total amount allocated under Women's Policy is down by $95,000. So that is a significant reduction in the budget there for a government that wants to place emphasis on women - the same government I might add, the same government now, the same Minister of Justice who is going to put to the courts, he is going to challenge an arbitration ruling that wanted to give equal pay for equal work, that said women in this Province should get the same pay for doing the same work and this government says no because we have some legal basis, which he will find out. They thought they had a legal basis on Trans City and they found out. They are being found wrong in the courts again. They kept challenging it. Why drag the people of the Province through hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs, in the millions of dollars legal fees and for costs and then having to pay it in the final analysis here, when you have an opportunity now to deal with it up front.

You know, why shouldn't women get paid the same as men for doing the same job? Members in the House of Assembly get paid the same, but out in the workforce unfortunately, in certain jobs specific classification, certain sectors, they are not recognized and are not considered equal and that is wrong, whatever the law tells us which I am sure you will find out tells us differently, but whatever it says, we should not have to appeal something to a court to take action to try to justify why we should be paying women less than we should be paying men. That is ridiculous, it is an insult to women and at the same time you slashed $100,000 out of their policy office that is supposed to enhance the opportunities of the Social Status of Women in the Province.

So I would certainly like to hear the minister's reasoning for doing that; his reasoning for not paying women the same in the workforce today and why the Budget item here in 2.7.01 is cut by approximately 15 per cent because of that. Also, I want to draw attention to page 26 I say to the minister, French language training; I will just ask these two and then I will give him an opportunity to respond. On French language training on page 26: Is the Premier's French lessons included in here, I ask the minister, a public expense? I would like to know if they are included in this particular amount and if they are, how much, what is it costing?

MR. DECKER: Which Premier are you talking about?

MR. SULLIVAN: Premier Tobin, I am just wondering if the French lessons that he is taking are included in this item or are they his own private lessons to enhance his federal-political career, or is the Liberal Party paying for those? Is it possible or his own provincial Party? Maybe the taxpayers might be delighted to pay for these; hopefully he will move on and stop the devastation he is causing here in the Province. Also, I am interested in knowing about the translation of government documents into French, what is the basic cost that is included there? That is probably under, I would imagine, Purchased Services or Professional Services I would assume. Yes, Professional Services I guess, in translation of certain documents; I would imagine translation on the Constitutional Amendment and things like general documentation that our Province needs to deal with; it would be interesting to know the specifics of those. So I will give the minister an opportunity especially on the Women's Policy Office and the area on French language training that we just looked at on page 26, to indicate the reasons for those expenditures, and certainly we are very eager to know if the Premier's French lessons are paid for by the Province or by himself personally.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member goes through the Budget here and finds examples of where we have actually reduced expenditures, and he gets all excited about that but, you know, go through the whole Budget and you will find that the overall Budget has been reduced. Now that is something we are taking great pride in, we are bragging about that; we are glad to tell taxpayers of the Province that we have reduced the overall Budget.

Now, when you reduce the Budget, you have to take it from individual departments and individual secretariats and individual programs and one of those is the Women's Policy office. We have an excellent minister responsible for the Status of Women, Mr. Chairman, and -

MR. SULLIVAN: Who is that?

MR. DECKER: Who is that, he says. We have an excellent minister who is doing a great job. Now, you see, the hon. member is contradicting himself. I am just looking at their own Blue Book, they used to call it. They talked about what they were going to do. They were going to abolish the payroll tax; they were going to cut taxes but yet, they were going to balance the Budget in four years. Okay, and he goes on to say: Government governing involves making choices; often these choices are difficult. Tell us about it, Mr. Chairman, tell us about it. That is exactly what we did and if you go through the whole Budget you will find that in almost everything that government does, we made some reductions.

MR. H. HODDER: Who is the minister responsible for the Status of Women, minister?

MR. DECKER: Within the last five minutes it was Julie Bettney, I do not know if they changed it, you have some knowledge that I do not.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, they are having great fun. We are discussing a $3.1 billion budget and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is asking about the french language training. That is a program which we do get some federal funding for and all civil servants who wish to avail of that, on a voluntary basis, this is made available to them and whether you are the Premier or Cabinet Minister or what have you, you are entitled to have that paid for. My staff in my office use to take advantage of that course and we do not discriminate against any civil servant who volunteers to take it, as a matter of fact the member himself if he so wished maybe might, he does not have any future in this Province, maybe he should take some french lessons, he might want to. You know if they have to parachute candidates into Labrador from Ottawa to run in a Tory election, maybe we should give the Leader of the Opposition some french training, so at least you could parachute someone in from the Avalon Peninsula to Labrador, as apposed to parachuting them in from Ottawa.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: When the minister has no answers, he tries to go on the offensive, that is what he does when he has no answers. He was doing a partial job, a fair job of answering some of the questions, until he gets to some of the tough ones.

When we asked him if the tax payers of the Province are paying for the Premiers french lessons, he started talking about everything else. Are we? Are we paying, out of the deductions, out of your cheque and all the hard working people of the Province, help pay for the Premiers french lessons? A simple question, could you tell us?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: I just answered that, I said we have in government a program whereby employees of government can take french lessons.

MR. SULLIVAN: But is he taking them?

MR. DECKER: Now, that program is partially funded by the Province and partially funded by the federal government. We live in a bilingual country, I do not know if the hon. member is aware of that or not, but French and English are the official languages and we do make it available to employees of government and whether -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Yes, members of the House can do it, that is available to anyone who wants to take advantage of it. I guess it comes out of the revenue of the Province and it is another expense, but this one is shared by the feds.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought we had three languages.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I mean he is great at avoiding answering questions. I did not ask him if it is available, I know it is available, I say to the minister. I asked you is the Premier availing of a program that pays for his french lessons?

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is all, is the Premier included in that list that gets his french lessons paid for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: What is the big deal?

MR. SULLIVAN: Just asked, simple, no big deal. You swear I am a dentist trying to extract teeth. You should have stood and said yes, his french lessons are paid for by the tax payers of the Province, that is all I asked. Now we have that settled, we know that much.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquacultures french lessons being paid for by the Province?

MR. EFFORD: No, not even my English lessons (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, I guess we could qualify to get English lessons covered under that program. Minister is that possible?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister, are there any members of the House getting any remuneration working as assistants, other then the normal ones, to ministers working in any capacity? Are any allowances or remunerations provided to any members in that regards?

So, I guess the minister probably wants to tell us now if, I am sure he would be eager to share all of this, if they are looking at setting up some super departments, I am sure on behalf of the Premier he would answer any junior ministers, or any of those things bantered around. I am sure the minister is much aware of that. I know we have an aspiring Minister of Finance here. He went around the Province and did a lot of consultation on the Budget, tremendous consultation on the Budget.

I ask the minister: I guess today in Canada the unity issue is very important - very, very important - and we have seen our Province, our country really, on the brink of getting a vote within Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, that is an issue too. That is an issue here. The problem hasn't been solved. You have to deal with the cause of the problem, not just the problem itself. You have to deal with the root of it, but in Canada as a whole.

With reference to this, I am wondering if there is any special allocation there, like for constitutional issues, because there is certainly a federal election occurring. On the leaders' debate last night, if anybody watched that, probably the topic that came out and received the greater portion of the concerns there, and most people seemed to be interested in, and the audience - the people were back and did an analysis of the debate there - the unity issue was very important. It is one of the key things. It probably did not initially start as being an issue, but I think last night brought it into the forum as an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of Canadians.

People want to see the country kept together. They want to see Quebec remain an important contributing part of our Canadian Federation. They also, in the meantime, want to see some roles played by the provinces, too, in having certain control over affairs that are in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

With that, I ask the minister: Is there any extra funding put aside this year to address the constitutional aspect? Does the Premier have any money put aside for constitutional issues, basically - not just constitutional talks, constitutional issues? I know, under the unity issue, many people went there. The constitutional advisor shakes his head and says, `no'. I am sure he is not speaking for government. I will rely on the minister to speak for government. I haven't always agreed with what he said on that, but we usually can take it as gospel. When he says they are going to negotiate in good faith, and things of that nature, I am sure we can take that as being the gospel, and we know there wouldn't be any other case.

Maybe he could let us know if there are any plans there in those regards, if Premier Malcolm has plans on his junior ministry of super departments, or any particular constitution there, because I think it would be a lack of planning not to be prepared to deal with constitutional issues and with Canada's unity, because the unity issue, I am sure the minister will admit, is a major issue. It probably has become now, at this point in the campaign - not so much to this Province, not so much to Newfoundland and Labrador, but from listening to people around the country, and anybody following the national news and the different panels on CTV and CBC and other networks - it has become probably the single-most important issue to Canadians now, when you look at, apart from, I guess, the basic jobs in the country and the unity issue go hand in hand as being the main one. So maybe we can be enlightened by the minister on some of these areas.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is asking me about the organization of government, the new departments (inaudible).

I am reminded, during the national convention in 1946 when Major Peter Cashin asked Mr. Smallwood who was going to be the Cabinet minister and who was going to be the Senator once Newfoundland became part of Canada. Smallwood said he would not be able to answer that question until he became Prime Minister of Canada, because it was the Prime Minister of Canada who decided who would be the minister from Newfoundland, and who would be in the Cabinet and who would be in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I would not be able to answer that question for the hon. member unless I were Premier of this Province, and I can assure him that day will never come.

I apologize for not being able to answer that first question about the major new departments being planned, junior ministers and all that sort of thing. Maybe the hon. member is just thinking what he would do if he were in power. Maybe, if ever that day would come, then he will make that decision.

The hon. member quite rightly says that the unity issue is a very important issue in this country. I watched the debate last night too and I think Canadians recognized how important that issue is and that is why I believe that when you look at the polls, you will see just how high the Liberals are in the polls in the federal election, and I believe that Canadians have long made up their minds that the best person in Canada today, to deal with that very, very important issue, is Prime Minister Chrétièn and the Liberal Party. I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination that you could say that Mr. Manning has the solution to the unity problem; I don't think Jean Charest has a chance of the proverbial snowball of ever being able to deal with the issues, so I would think that the unity issue is a matter that Canadians have already recognized it is an important matter and I am sure they know that to deal with such an important issue, I think that they will show us on June 2, that the best way to do it is to re-elect the present federal government.

The hon. member asks about the Premier attending constitutional meetings, conferences and all that. I think the hon. member knows that, as in the past, when there is a First Ministers' Conference, we will be there, our Premier will be there playing an important role as Premiers in the past have done, and we have provisions made for that of course, as that is part of the job of being Premier of this Province, is attending the various First Ministers' Conferences and from time to time they will deal with certain issues and if Mr. Chrétièn, when he is re-elected, decides to have a First Ministers' Conference to deal with the Constitution, and that will be Mr. Chrétièn's decision in consultation with the First Ministers across the country, then the hon. member can be absolutely sure that our Premier will be there making his very valuable contribution.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I want to follow up on some of the comments that were made a few minutes ago by the Leader of the Opposition relative to the old issue of pay equity.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we know that this Province, a few years ago, negotiated a plan on pay equity and the fact it was negotiated by the Conservative Government of Brian Peckford in 1988, there were commitments made and when they were made, they were made in all sincerity because Brian Peckford and his government of the day in 1988 said that: it is unfair that we should pay females less money for doing work of a similar nature just because they happen to be female, therefore any person of any integrity at all would go and say: Yes, that is a very, very laudable policy for any government to have, and so, Brian Peckford in 1988, said that he would be committed to having a pay equity policy put in place and so his government initiated actions and did some negotiations on it.

Of course, we know what happened. We had the right wing Liberal Administration of Clyde Wells come in and they said: no, no, we cannot do this thing about pay equity; we cannot be committed to paying females equal money for work of equal value, and so we had all that scrapped or deferred as he would say it; and of course there were commitments made that would be reviewed over some time but we know what happened. The whole pay equity program was sent to arbitration and it took a real long time for it to be finally settled, but we know what happened just a few weeks or months ago now when the report came down. It came down and said that this government had made an error in not continuing with the pay equity program and so the report is in.

It says that we, as a Province, should live up to our commitments. We told the female workers, employed by government in 1988, that we would be committed to paying equal remuneration for equal work of equal value. Ever since then we have been trying to find weaselly ways to just back out of it and that is totally outrageous and unfair.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we know that the commissioners who heard the evidence said you cannot use bad economic times as an excuse for not paying people for the same wages for work of equal value. You can say we are going to cut back on everybody but you cannot cut back on one group of people based on their sexuality. So therefore what the commissioner said was that you cannot take a group of female workers and say that okay - we cannot pay you people what we should pay you because you have to be female. So we are going to say, you people pay a greater sacrifice than the other workers who happen to be predominately male.

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that the government got its report a few weeks ago and what do we hear? Right away we said the people who were affected, we watched them on television and they said they were very happy. It took a lot of money, it took a lot of time and they were very contented. Some people were owed a lot of money but the total bill of course turns out to be $80 million? You have to ask yourself, how did we get to owe $80 million? Because we did not live up to the obligations that the government has towards its female workers. So the government of the day, led by the hon. Minister of Justice, says, no, no, we are not going to do that. We are going to refer that to Justice to see if we can find some loophole, find some excuses, find some little comma or something that maybe should not have been said that was said or something entered in evidence that should not have been entered in evidence but after all of that, even if the Department of Justice does win in their appeal, we still have the basic fundamental political decisions that we have saved $80 million on the backs of female workers who are employed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its various agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Minister of Justice that this seems to be a direct contravention of the intent that was put forward in '88. It seems to be directly at variance with what I assume to be progressive Liberal policy. Certainly I would expect the Liberals in this House - being by the very nature of being Liberals - that they would be the champions of equality. They would be the champions of fairness. They would be champions of balance but we find that when it comes to pay equity, the Liberal administration of this Province is still back in the days of yesteryear. So we have to - as the old folks would say, still back in pod auger days. So I want to say to the Minister of Justice, will he reconsider what he is doing and the message that he is sending to the workers of the Province and to all workers, not just those who are employed by the government. When the Minister of Justice says, we are looking for an excuse, looking for a way not to do this. Instead of going out - as I suggested in the House a few weeks ago - and entering into some negotiations. Maybe there can be some settlement made. Maybe we can get back on the right track of being committed to making sure that females are paid equally for work of equal value and make some progression towards equalizing the value of the work that is done in terms of the salary that is paid.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Minister of Justice, stop the nonsense. Let's not look for more loopholes. At the end of the day, even if you are able to find a loophole - and of course we know that this has been fought under the Charter of Rights because basically that is what government has done, and what many other employers do, is discriminate against females because they are female. `We expect to pay them less', is what many employers say, and they do. Therefore, we have whole categories of employment that are predominately female, and we send a message out to them that we don't value their work as much because we pay them a lot less.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the House that we want, on this particular issue, to say to you that we don't support your policy of going to the courts to find redress there. Be bold, as the Minister of Finance said, be aggressive, be fair, be reasonable, and then maybe we can negotiate some settlement to this particular issue, because the female workers of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador aren't very happy with the messages they are receiving from this government, and they have to answer the fundamental question: Even if you do win in your challenge in the court, what then? What will you do then? Will everybody be happy because you saved $30 million, $40 million, $50 million, $80 million on the backs of the female workers of the Province? I can't see everybody rejoicing at that. That doesn't make any sense, although maybe that is the intent. We can all say that we saved $80 million on the backs of the female workers. That would be a sad commentary if that were the intent.

At the end of the day you are going to have to go and negotiate with the various unions that represent the female workers. What I am saying is: Why not do it now? Why go through all the charades of challenges through the court system, trying to prove that somebody didn't have the right argument? Go back to the commitment made in 1988 by the Conservative government of the day when they said they would have a gradual progression on pay equity. We made the female workers of this Province pay too much of a sacrifice. We have not been fair to them and, of course, I would expect the government to do the right thing and honour the commitments that were made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, no.

Mr. Chairman, maybe we should take a little break here to say to the Minister of Justice that maybe he wants to get up now and take this opportunity to say that he is going to withdraw the court challenge on pay equity, because I know that as a man of some consciousness he would want to do that. But when he was speaking just now he was making some comments about the debate last night, and some comments about the federal campaign.

We, on this side, are quite proud of the way in which our leader stood up last night. In the Toronto Globe and Mail today their headlines say that Charest was the best performer, and they certainly aren't very over-complimentary to the Prime Minister. It said here, in today's Toronto's Globe and Mail, Canada's national paper, that the Prime Minister was assailed over the job record.

Mr. Chairman, we know that in 1993 the Prime Minister got elected on a commitment of jobs, jobs and jobs. Of course, we know that he takes great pride in quoting some stats in saying they created 795,000 jobs; but, of course, unemployment in Canada is higher now than it ever was.

We remember back in '93 when the Leader of the Conservative Party said that she didn't think there was going to be much change in unemployment stats for this country over the next few years, and the current Prime Minister said, shame, shame, shame, elect us, we are going to do something about that. So, consequently you see what he has done about it, zero. In fact, after three and a half years in office unemployment in this country is as bad or worse than ever it was.

Absolute failure, so no wonder the Prime Minister was assailed over his job record, my goodness gracious, when you go out and you make a commitment in `93 and then three and a half years later you looked around at the stats, look around your communities, what has the job strategy done for rural Newfoundland? Absolutely nothing. Rural Newfoundland, we had to move our people out because there are simply no jobs in this Province for them.

So, no wonder last might the Prime Minister was assailed by all the other leader and by the people who asked questions from the press and others, on the whole issue of his job strategy because more and more we are finding that people remember the pledges that were made and of course you hold up the red book, the one that was out in `93 and we see all that was promised there and now is the day of reckoning and of course, as a matter of fact The Globe and Mail; the national newspaper, they give Jean Charest, really the star of the evening, you might say and we believe that he has a great future in the Conservative Party and we are glad to know that now he had been recognized nationally as one of the outstanding Canadian political leaders in the country. We are not hiding behind anything over here, we are proud of our leader, proud of the way that he has been able to work over the last three and a half years and by far the best leader in the country and everybody is now saying that. In fact many Liberals are now saying that they are having difficulty matching Prime Minster Chrétien and the leader of the Conservative Party because we are on the rise. You can see that the trend is coming and I just remind the hon. member from Labrador West that, yes right now the Liberals are up in the polls, they were at forty-eight per cent a couple weeks ago. What is the number today? Forty-one per cent.

MR. TULK: You will never make (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The big slide is coming and just like what happened in `93, so the big fall is starting to happen, they were at well over fifty per cent there a few weeks ago and then it went down to forty-eight, down to forty-six and now down to, someone is saying here, forty or forty-one. Of course, that has to be bad news if you happen to be Liberal because you would be very very concerned because once that starts rolling down hill, we know what happened in `93 to the Conservative Party, we were the victims in `93 of that big snowball. When we went into the election in `93 the Conservatives, in fact, were way ahead in the polls, but by the time the election was over we were down to, we still had a fair number of total votes across the country, but we were somewhat less than very successful in terms of the total number elected. We will do much better in 1997 and we will do many many times and -

MR. OSBORNE: Charest is the best liked leader in Quebec.

MR. H. HODDER: - as my colleague from St. John's South is saying, Jean Charest is the best liked leader in Quebec. That is not surprising at all, that he would be the best liked leader. A man who went last year and put aside his partisanship on national unity and went out and said, I will go shoulder to shoulder with all the federalist, the Prime Minister, I will go shoulder to shoulder with him. He went shoulder to shoulder with the Premier of this Province and said, I want to do all I can to make sure that my family stays in this country, in a united country and of course you know it did not last long. How did the Prime Minster show his appreciation? Well, on the last day of that particular event when the vote was in, he snubbed him. That is what he did with him, he snubbed him. He wasn't even the least bit grateful. It reminded me of the big celebrations we had in Newfoundland last week when we had the christening of the Hibernia platform. (Inaudible) you know, when you realize that that particular whole initiative was a Conservative government initiative, had it not been for John Crosbie, had it not been for Brian Mulroney - everybody criticizes him - had it not been for Brian Mulroney, John Crosbie and Brian Peckford, there might not have been a Hibernia platform.

Where was Jean Chrétien back in the 1980s? He was taking the federal government's side against Newfoundland's right to have ownership and control over the offshore. Who was representing Newfoundland's arguments over the offshore? Clyde Wells was Newfoundland's lawyer, was the federal government's lawyer, arguing against Newfoundland's ownership of the offshore.

So - and the other day, showing gratitude. Now you know, there can be no excuse for the fact that at the Hibernia christening a few days ago look at the people who were not invited. John Crosbie was not invited, I'm told. I'm told as well that Brian Peckford was not invited, and neither was Brian Mulroney invited. We have to be somewhat willing at times to put partisan politics aside.

Jean Charest, back when Canada was at risk a year or so ago, was able to put partisan politics aside. A lesson there for the Liberal government in this Province last week when it was so petty in its politics that it could not share the stage with a John Crosbie or a Brian Peckford who worked so hard against the arguments put forward by Jean Chrétien, who argued the federal side when it came to ownership of the offshore, and was opposed to provincial initiatives in that area.

I say to the hon. member, it was a sad day last week when we could not, as I guess the government of this Province, say to John Crosbie: Look, you are welcome when it comes to the christening at Hibernia. That was a sad commentary. I certainly think that an apology is owed to Brian Peckford and John Crosbie for the fact that they were left out. If we are going to celebrate the workers and the people who made Hibernia possible, we have to celebrate as well the work that was done by John Crosbie, put partisan politics aside, and we snub two of Newfoundland's leading citizens when we did that omission last week when we left out those two people.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the Member for Baie Verte is now going to share with us some of his reflections on the way in which this government deals with people and issues.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I await with anticipation for the hon. Member for Baie Verte, but I just want to draw attention - the hon. member just made a long speech, and I didn't see any questions on the Budget there, but he did make some reference to pay equity, as if they were the only people in the world who believed in pay equity.

I remind the hon. member that in this year alone the government of this Province is paying an extra $27 million to address the problems with pay equity. When we finish our pay equity program, we will annually be paying $55 million a year to address that issue. This government is committed to pay equity, and the hon. member knows that. However, there is a specific case where there are some circumstances that we don't want to set precedents. However, I don't want to discuss that case. We are asking for a judicial review, and before we tell the members of the Opposition we would like for the judge to hear our case first.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Opposition loves to talk about insisting that we would spend the people's money, even if we don't have to spend the people's money. This issue would cost the Province $80 million. We might not be liable for that $80 million, but I can see what the Opposition would do if they were sitting where we are. Every time a bill comes in, whether it is for $1 million or $200 million, pay it, pay it, pay it. They are so anxious, they are following in the footsteps of their predecessors.

Someone in this House yesterday said, for seventeen years they spent like drunken sailors. Well, their ten years in Opposition has not taught them a single thing. They would still continue to spend like a bunch of drunken sailors, and every time that someone came to the government and said, `We want $1 million or $10 million or $80 million, or $500 million...' That is what got us in the mess we are in. That is why, when we look at those estimates here, we see we are spending $500 million a year to service our debt, just to pay the interest on the debt that the previous administration ran up in foolhardy schemes like Sprung and what have you.

Think of what we could do with pay equity if we didn't have to pay $500 million to service a debt which was run up by seventeen years of Tory rule in this Province. Think what we could do with it. And they have not learned a single lesson. They have been kicked out of power; they have been kicked out into the Opposition; they have seen how a good government should operate, and they have not learned one single thing, because they want to get back in power so they can pay out money every time someone asks the government for money.

When I was first elected to this House in 1985 there were, I believe, thirty-six of them sitting over on this side of the House. In 1989 that was cut down to seventeen. Now we are down to what? What is over there now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine.

MR. DECKER: Nine of them. So, Mr. Chairman, the graph doesn't look that good, and the reason their popularity is declining is because they are so anxious to give away the taxpayers' money. Every time someone says, `Give us $80 million', I can see the Member for Waterford Valley, if he were the Minister of Finance, probably take the government cheque book in his inside pocket and every time someone said, `Give me $80 million', he would slap it out. What he has to realize is that the taxpayer is paying for that. The fishermen of Cape St. Mary's are paying for that. The logger up in Roddickton, who was in the other day, up to his waist in snow, trying to make a living for his family, his taxes are paying for that, Mr. Speaker. The miners up in Labrador West who today are in there working all day and when they get their cheques at the end of this month, Mr. Chairman, they will find that 30 per cent was taken off to pay for schemes, to pay for Sprung Greenhouses, pay for $530 million of interest on the debt that the previous administration ran up and still he has not learnt his lesson, still he gets up and says every time someone brings a bill to your government, don't even look at it, just slap it out, that is the mentality that they have. I would have thought that the ten years in opposition would have taught them a lesson and as they watched what happens to them, every time that there has been an election in the last three years, they have gone down in numbers.

Surely goodness, they must realize that something is wrong but it is not easy to figure out what is wrong, because they would be too loose with the public purse, that is why their popularity has gone down and that is why it continues to go down; and I foresee the day when they will end up with the same treatment that Mr. Mulroney had. They will end up in the same position as Mr. Mulroney and Jack Harris and his team, Mr. Chairman, will become the Official Opposition, and once they become Official Opposition they will stop because all the NDP wants ever to be, is the opposition.

I have never heard them in a campaign federally or provincially yet where they have not wanted to be opposition; so I foresee the day coming very soon if we get this group with that mentality, that philosophy, spend, spend, spend, Mr. Chairman, the graph will continue to decline and they will be all out the door. They will be all out the door and the Liberals, who always wanted to be the governing Party, we will continue to be the governing Party and the NDP who always wants to be the opposition Party, they will be the Official Opposition Party and what a time it will be; it will be an Utopia in Newfoundland, the Liberals where they want to be, the NDP where they want to be and no more bothering with a bunch who want to go like a bunch of drunken sailors and every time a bill is submitted to government, pay it whether you owe it or not.

Now I think I addressed the pay equity in the hon. member's speech. He also made some excursions into the federal election; I don't think I will address that because that is really outside the concern of this House and he is talking about the history of Hibernia, Mr. Chairman, his version of the history of Hibernia, I don't agree with history, I think he should do a little more research. I do believe that we could have signed the deal back in the early 1980s and I can tell the hon. member that the people of this Province would be in a much better position today, had we signed a deal on Hibernia back in the 80s, we would have been pumping oil now and the oil field would be going so his interpretation of history I don't share, Mr. Chairman.

I think I have addressed all the issues that the hon. member raised. If I did not, I am sure when he gets up again he will remind me that I did not address them. Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted today to stand and make some comments with respect to the Estimates in Executive Council, Mr. Chairman, but first of all I cannot help but make a few comments in response to some of the comments that the Minister of Justice has made. First of all, you may have noticed that the minister has been sound asleep now since the House opened, sitting back practically snoring in his chair. Talk about drunken sailors, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why he is sleeping so much. He sits back in his chair and says nothing then all of a sudden, he has been so wound up I guess - so well rested sitting back in his chair. He has nothing to say for weeks and weeks then all of a sudden he wakes up. Somebody must have thrown some water over the back of his head or something, Mr. Chairman, and woke him up. That is exactly what happened here because he sat back and said nothing for so long, poured on the rhetoric and all of a sudden, bang, he comes to his taps. All of a sudden snoring it off and he wakes up in the middle of nowhere, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Up he comes screeching and bawling about everything that is happening around the Province. Mr. Chairman, from what he talked about, when you give rhetoric, you usually get rhetoric back. So he stands up with the rhetoric about the mistakes of seventeen years of Tories and he's talking about the Sprung and all that. I don't give a hoot about the Sprung and anybody who has ever had anything to do with Sprung as a matter of fact. As a matter of fact, if I had my way I would throw them all out of the House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman. I am not too worried about the Sprung and the Sprung -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Maybe it is hitting a nerve now, Mr. Chairman, but the Sprung - the truth is the cucumbers are starting to look like pickles compared to what mistakes that these -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The pickle book. So, Mr. Chairman, we can bring down the cucumbers to a pickle. Mr. Chairman, the only cucumbers that I want to talk about are the sea cucumbers, the ocean cucumbers that we are going to make some money on and be positive about, not to fall in the trap that the Minister of Justice waits once every blue moon to stand to his taps because he is bored and he just woke up and put on all that rhetoric. Mr. Chairman, the truth is the debate back and forth in the House over the last few days has been a lot of positives thrown in there. The Minister of Environment and Labour got up yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and talked positives and I talked positives back but every now and then you throw in this rhetoric. There is nobody over here with seventeen years of background of Tories from years before. Are you going to take credit for all the mistakes?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course.

MR. SHELLEY: Are you going to take the credit for all what the Liberals did back in 1949 and on up through and all those days?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course.

MR. SHELLEY: What credit can you take for it? Mistake after mistake after mistake, Mr. Chairman. I don't care what party you are in, mistake after mistake.

The Churchill Falls, do you want to name one? That will take care of every mistake ever done. Trans City, Mr. Chairman. The privatization of Hydro, more millions of dollars. I mean we can go on and on and on but I am not going to do that, I'm not going to use that rhetoric. I'm going to try to get back to some of the estimates and talk about those instead of using them. I don't really give a hoot about seventeen years of Tories and the mistakes they did. If they were as bad as the Minister of Justice, if he is going to be as bad as he was, he should kick him out too, throw him through the door, same thing. Throw them all out. Sold the shop!

That rhetoric can go on. We can stay in here for hours talking about that type of thing but I'm not going to do that. I wouldn't even bring it up except the Minister of Justice reminded me of it. Sound asleep, woke up in the middle of his sleep, and got excited. I see it happening every now and then, not very often though.

What we should keep in mind, and what I wanted to speak on today in particular, and I know it is all related to Estimates, are teachers. I want to take a couple of minutes just to talk about teachers on record in this House so that I can say publicly and in this House and in this Chamber what I think of teachers. The teaching profession in Newfoundland has moulded characters beyond an education. It has moulded young people to go on to be very successful Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and who have made us proud over the years. Teachers are not just the persons who open up the math book, the reading book, and the science book and teach students what is in those books. Teachers are a lot more than that.

The real profession of a teacher is the teacher who takes his time after hours, who takes his kids on trips, who coaches, who takes drama groups, who listens to a student. Because I've been a teacher, and I still feel that strongly today about the teaching profession as I did when I was in it. I have a lot of respect for the teaching profession. It is so easy for us to stand, of course, with the public the way they were down on teachers, and ridicule teachers and the profession.

I will admit, like any member here in this House, yes, there are some teachers in the profession who don't live up to what they should do. It is like it in any profession. In the police force. Politicians are the best example. There are lots of examples of politicians who don't live up to their expectations. But for the most part, for the vast majority of teachers in this Province, I can say that the people who I've worked with and the people who I've known, teachers do give their all, and they are probably the most important, next to the parent, person to mould a child's life and to lead him into a profession hopefully down the road.

I've been one of those teachers. I certainly didn't get home at 3:00 p.m. What I did, every single evening - and every student in my school will confirm it - that I've been with sports groups, with drama groups, groups that have been travelling. Almost every single weekend of the year I have done something with those students, and there are a lot of teachers out there today who deserve more from politicians and people in general, to say that you have done a good job. We have to stop putting down teachers and the profession. What we should be doing is praising them up for what they do, because the problem right now in our schools - and it also relates to the health profession - morale is so low that it has directly affected teachers' ability to teach.

Mr. Chairman, when you walk into staff rooms around this Province these days and talk to staff and teachers, morale is so low that it is very difficult - very difficult - to walk into that classroom and be productive, and do the best you can with your profession, and I will give you a specific example for the members in the House here today.

I spoke with a staff this week, when I was in Baie Verte, at St. Pius X, who had just gotten their pink slips. With all of this confusion about who is going to be hired and fired and so on, they got their pink slips and within thirty seconds the bell rings for them to go into the classroom. They got their slips, got the envelopes, opened them up, all mass confusion, who was bumping who, where are they going, who has a job, who does not have a job, and within thirty seconds the bell rings and they have to walk into a classroom with thirty students. It is in disarray. That is exactly what is happening in the education system.

Yes, we have to look for solutions to settle people down because the shame of it all is that the people who are losing out are not the politicians or even the teachers, who are arguing back and forth about what should happen in the education system. The bottom line is that the whole reason for education reform is for the student, and that is what seems to be missing from the debate over the last months and even year or so, that the student and the best education for our students has been lacking.

The whole premise, the underpinnings of education reform, as I understood it - and I think everybody in the House understood it - is that when the day is done, when the reform is finished, that education for our students would be better. Unless I misunderstood it, that is what I understood, and I thought every member in this House understood, that we were going to do education reform because we want a better education for our children.

There is only one real, simple question for this whole debate, and you have to answer yes or no. You have to say to yourself: Okay, when all of the pain, when all the reform is done, can we look at the student in the classroom, in his or her seat, and say: Is education now better for you? The real shame about all of that is that you are going to be able to say - you will have to say - no, it is not.

The analogy I used a couple of days ago was a good one, I think; it is like going to a dentist. You don't mind going through the pain of having that tooth pulled, which is one of the most dreaded things you can do, if you know that afterwards the tooth is gone and the pain is over.

With respect to education, all of the changes, all of the pain, all of the reorganizing, restructuring - whatever way you want to use it, it is downsizing - after all of that pain we are going to look at that same student in the desk and really tell him that education is not any better. I hope that does not happen, Mr. Chairman, I hope that a year from now, the Minister of Education can stand in his place and say: no, we have more resources, the buildings are better, the system is better there is a better teacher-student ratio, all things are better because that was the whole premise, that was the underpinnings of education reform, that education, at the end of the day would be better.

Mr. Chairman, I talked to a lot of students on this lately just to get their opinion about how they feel. You know what they have been saying to me and I bet, if you talk to students yourself, you will get the same response. They say that it is just so gloomy here now or that we are all so down, that the teachers are down, the students are down; the parents will come in and complain that they are down and, Mr. Chairman, it is not the right atmosphere for education. From being an educator myself and remembering it like it was yesterday, I remember the best form of education -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I was a teacher I say to the minister. Actually I was very lucky that I spread myself around in the short career I had. I started in high school, I taught Adult Education and I ended up teaching Kindergarten to Grade VI, so I had a bit of everything but what was really good was, that I had the opportunity of being a substitute teacher for a little while so what that did –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: On the Baie Verte Peninsula. - I travelled all around and went in to all these different schools so I had that opportunity to feel it out, what it is really like to go down to a school that had Grade IV, V and VI in one class. I did that, and I have also, Mr. Chairman, gone from that to doing my student teaching at Brother Rice here in St. John's and Regina in Corner Brook. So I saw a big variety, a huge variety of teaching experiences in the Province right from Kindergarten to Grade VI, to High School, to actually adult education and I can tell you first hand from experiences just a short time ago really, because it is only four years since I have been teaching - I know the Government House Leader was a teacher also, weren't you? - that there is not one element that is more important in the classroom, whether it is an adult, kindergarten or high school, there is not one element more important than the atmosphere of being there and ready to learn, and that comes with being contented and with a full belly.

Imagine, children going to school who are actually hungry sitting in their seats. I can tell you, you can remember yourself - sure, we have an example here, that when we are close to supper time here, you know what you feel like, you are cranky and there are things happening, you are not learning, it is not the best atmosphere for learning, Mr. Chairman, to be hungry, so that is No. 1 -

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't listen to the speeches any more.

MR. SHELLEY: They don't listen to speeches any more. As we start to get hungry, I notice that some of the members don't even listen to the speeches any more. But, Mr. Chairman, what is more important is that morale has to be high. The morale in the schools right now, and I don't think I am dramatizing this or overexerting my point on this, is that you have to have good morale with the teachers, the people who are going to go in and punch their hours. Mr. Chairman, it is not always easy to walk into school at 9:00 every morning and try to get psyched up to deal, for six or seven hours, with thirty and forty students whom you have to control, first of all. When you put thirty or forty students together, discipline obviously is a problem sometimes. And you have to, at the same time, get the information to them so that you can teach them properly. And, again, you have to have them in the right mood to learn. How can you do that if you do not feel up to it yourself? That is the point.

I say here in the House, I would say publicly anywhere, the teaching profession - we, as politicians especially, and everybody in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, should be commending teachers for the job they do. Yes, there are some bad apples - there are some bad apples in every profession, but I am going to tell you right now that most teachers I know - and how they affect the small community is another point.

Teachers in my community - they are on the council, they are on the Come Home Year Committee, they are on the summer committees, they are doing Boy Scouts, they are in the Kinsmen Club, Kinettes Club, they are in everything,and I know it is the same for a lot of communities around this Province.

Teachers are leaders and that is why I am certainly going to anytime, anywhere I go, talk about teachers as a profession that we need to encourage and to help through this tough difficult time of reorganization in our school system, Mr. Chairman. They are the people - like one person said to me, the teacher, just stop to think about it, you bring your six-year-old, your little girl - like I did a little while ago, you bring your six-year-old and you pass the child to a Kindergarten teacher; you are going to leave that person to be responsible for and to affect the growth of your child.

That is why it is important that we continue to support teachers in their profession, especially through these tough times, and that we do not hesitate to say, publicly or anywhere, that teachers are professionals in this Province and they should be commended for the job they do. And new teachers should be encouraged to come into the profession; because right now, young people starting university, when they look at the teaching profession, are saying: It is not the profession for me. But I encourage them to do so, because you do affect the person that you come in contact with, sometimes for six or seven years. Outside the classroom, there is no better effect on a young person than having them involved in sports or drama groups or anything like that. If you talk to students, what they remember is a trip they went on, or something that happened in a basketball game, or something like that. Those are the things they remember about school, Mr. Chairman, the extracurricular activities.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave Mr. Chairman, just to clue up.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, just to clue up, I am just making that point today. We got away from the rhetoric, which was good.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I will clue up and give my colleagues a chance.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Just to clue up on the teaching profession, to make it quite clear, and I have no problems saying it anywhere, I support the teaching profession. I commend teachers around this Province for not just teaching but for going beyond what the normal profession has to do, and going outside in the community and helping people in the communities around this Province that need so much help now as we go through tough economic times.

Yes, education reform has to happen, yes, it is a reality. Yes, there is a question of dollars, but the bottom line is that when the day is done, when the pain is finished, when the hurt is finished, when the belt-tightening is over with, can we look at the student in the classroom and say: You will have a better education system?

If so, well, I will applaud it and commend it. If not, we might have to go back to the drawing board. I hope we do not have to go all the way back to the drawing board, because there is going to be a lot of waste in money if we do that. But teachers have to be commended for the work they do, and I support them anywhere, anytime.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


 

 

 

May 13, 1997             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIII  No. 24A

 


[Continuation of Sitting]

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

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

I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Baie Verte for such a great speech, it certainly makes me feel good on this side of the House to know that the hon. Member for Baie Verte has touched on a new beginning. A new beginning, Mr. Chairman, in a sense that he talked about morale. How important it was to have good morale, but he applied it only to students, to the schools and teachers. Well, Mr. Chairman, morale should apply to everybody in this Province, especially in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, when you look back over the years and think about where we were back in 1972 and you think about when the government changed in `72 and the brand new Tory government came into being, it is not very encouraging, but Mr. Chairman, when you jump ahead to 1989, then I can tell you there is new hope, there is a new morale and there is a new goal with new enthusiasm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: When the Liberal government when out in 1972 we had a seven per cent unemployment rate, $750 million in dept, Mr. Chairman, and then came the Tories and what a spree they went on. Frank Moores and his entourage came in here and they doubled the debt, they doubled it, and then Mr. Peckford comes in and he doubles the debt and when we came in Mr. Chairman, we got rid of the limousine and the cigars and we took a responsible approach to the governing of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in 1972, we had seven per cent unemployed, a $750 million debt and in 1989 we had, I think it was somewhere around a $6 billion debt, paying $550 million in interest, $12,000 a minute and now they get over on the other side of the House and they talk about morale and we on this side of the House since 1989 have been trying to do all of the things, Mr. Chairman, that are good for this Province, all of the things that are good, all of the things that are in the best interest of the people that we serve.

I said yesterday in this House, we had a twenty-four per cent unemployment rate in 1985, twenty-four per cent and what did they do, Mr. Chairman, they beat us to the punch. In 1984, they began a new approach to the unemployment rate in this Province and what should they do between 1984 and 1988, they put 10,000 people on the public payroll, 10,000 people, Mr.Chairman, on the public payroll and they wonder, they sit over there and they wonder where the money is gone. Well, Mr. Chairman, they spent the money of this Province. They put the sales tax up to twelve per cent, they burdened the people with such taxation that they could hardly survive and today I hear the Member for Baie Verte, minister, I am really getting carried away now, the Member for Baie Verte over there talking about morale. Well, Mr. Chairman, he has made a new beginning. He should talk about that morale.

It was only a couple of days ago I was driving alone the highway, I heard a news report, that all the people in the rest of Canada think that all accommodations here are filled for the summer. Where did it come from, Mr. Chairman? It came from the crowd opposite. All last fall they got up and they questioned the Minister of Tourism about the lack of accommodations in this Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what they are doing on the other side of the House is causing paranoia, everything -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: The hon. member from the West Coast there, says that they are fearmongering and you are right and pretty soon that fear turns into what you call paranoia on this side of the House. Then he has the audacity to get up and talk about morale. Every time the government tries to do something, as our good Premier has said, they latch onto this dark cloud. They latch onto this dark cloud and haul it down over their heads because they do not want to see any light. They do not even think back to what their former leader had said: One day the sun will shine and have not will be no more.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Opposition House Leader wants to get in on the conversation again. As I told him before, he is a Liberal sitting on the Tory side of the House. A Liberal since 1964, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Waterford Valley, since 1964 he was a Liberal and what should he do, Mr. Chairman, when he had the opportunity he ran for the Tories and he ended up in Opposition. Now, make no wonder that they are in the commotions that they are in. They are that confused about what they want to do and where they want to go, all they want to do is pick holes in the things that the government is trying to do so that they can cause fear in the minds of Newfoundlanders. They want to kill the spirit of Newfoundlanders, that is what they want to do. Every time the government brings in a new initiative or there is a new happening in the Province, there are jobs being created, there is something wrong with it Mr. Chairman. They want to wrap themselves in that black cloud, there is no other way.

But I must say, that I am quite pleased to hear the Member for Baie Verte is now going to chart a new course and he certainly has the leadership abilities to do it. I think he could lead those members on the other side to a much more positive approach, to what we are trying to do in this Province. Now, Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that he has the ability to do it, but he has to apply himself because if he does not apply himself he is not going to show the rest of his colleagues his true value, but by getting up today and talking about the morale, the morale in schools, the morale among teachers, is a good beginning. What he has to do now is raise the morale of everybody in the Province, not select groups. Forget about where he came from, but start concentrating on where he is going, where he wants to go, where he wants to see this Province go and there is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chairman, there is nobody that sits in this House that does not want to see everybody in this Province employed.

Now, Mr. Smallwood did a fantastic job with employment in this Province. After 23 years of ruling this Province, he left with a $750 million debt and a seven per cent unemployment rate. Mr. Chairman, he built the hospitals, the schools, the roads, the University, ferries, causeways, we could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, about what Mr. Smallwood did for this Province. And, Mr. Chairman, all we have gotten out of the Tory Party is their throwing around innuendoes. They investigated the great Mr. Smallwood for five years. For five years they caused Mr. Smallwood to be investigated; for five years they kept up that paranoia, and at the end of the five years, it came back that Mr. Smallwood had done nothing criminally wrong. But yet, they had the people of this Province believing that Mr. Smallwood had done something wrong. Those of us, Mr. Chairman, who knew Mr. Smallwood and associated with him, had the highest regard for him; the highest regard for what he did.

MR. A. REID: That is what the Tories do. Because when Brian Peckford took over in 1982, he sent the RCMP into Frank Moores' home and confiscated every file and every record that Frank was the owner of - in his private home in Montreal. So that is what Tories do.

MR. WISEMAN: It is okay, Mr. Chairman.

My hon. colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has confirmed that that is what Tories do. They cause paranoia, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Witch hunts.

MR. WISEMAN: Witch hunts galore, the more witch hunts and the more paranoia they can cause, the better for their cause. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, in my mind, they have no cause. They have no agenda, we have seen their Blue Book, Mr. Chairman, and we have seen nothing. There are no solutions to the problems that we have in this Province and no initiatives by the members opposite to do anything about them. They asked a lot of questions, Mr. Chairman, but I guarantee you anybody, Mr. Chairman, anybody can ask a lot of questions, but the real thing is, who is going to provide the answers? But we, on this side, work day and night to find the solutions to the problems that we have. Mr. Chairman, it is pretty difficult for the ministers in my government to work day and night, to do what is in the best interest of the people of this Province while the crowd Opposite, all they do is criticize.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the Opposition asking good questions. Let there be no doubt that I have no problem with the members asking good questions because that is what it is all about. But, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, these questions should be very constructive questions. Most of the questions they ask are precluded by a speech. What they do first is, they get up and make a speech, because they want to get a few plugs in, a few dirty digs, to cause a little more paranoia in the Province. That is what they want to do because that is how they expect to keep their seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doom and gloom.

MR. WISEMAN: Doom and gloom for everybody. But, Mr. Chairman, in my mind, that is not a productive way for the Opposition to behave. They would be better off - but they are not going to listen to what I say - they would be better off agreeing with some of the initiatives that the government is taking; but no, Mr. Chairman, not one initiative that the government has undertaken has been supported by them, not one. And here we are, in our 500th year of discovery, and lo and behold, they found something wrong with that. Now, Mr. Chairman, they do not realize the kind of effect they have when they blurt all over the media the problems they say we have. They say we have problems with accommodation. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a problem with accommodation in this Province.

The minister has, time and time again outlined for the members of this House where people can and will be accommodated but no, Mr. Chairman, no, they have to get on the airwaves, they have to get into the media, they have to tell the world that there is something wrong; they have to create that Opposition crisis that belongs to them alone. They are the party of crisis, Mr. Chairman, and I believe they are in a crisis because they do not want to stand up and say: We are going to work in the best interests of all of the people of this Province. It is not in their will to do it, Mr. Chairman, and in order to do things you have to have a will, but they do not have a will. They do not have the will to do it.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue to try to do what is in the best interests of the people that we represent. How fortunate we were to be elected in 1989, because if we had not come in here in 1989 the Province would now be bankrupt; and there is no doubt about it. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, we came in here in 1989 paying $550 million in interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. WISEMAN: The interest on the debt that the Province owed; $12,000 a minute, run up by a Tory government.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can understand why hon. members opposite, the members of his own caucus, would not give the Member for Topsail leave. We were getting a little concerned over here.

MR. EFFORD: If you have the energy, take your hands out of your pockets, my son.

MR. HARRIS: I am glad to see that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is paying attention, because I am about to talk about something very important.

I know that hon. members in the House are concerned, when they think about it, about the plight of people in this Province, but there is a difference between being concerned, Mr. Chairman, and moving one step further into action on some of the issues that confront them.

Mr. Chairman, we are on the budget debate, and I understand that we are dealing with the Executive Council budget. There are some very important issues in the Province today, and I think we have to start looking at some of the issues that have been brought forth in this House, that are very important and must be addressed if we are going to seriously regard ourselves as the tribunes of the people in this House, looking after the interests that the people have.

We have a very serious problem arising in the area of poverty in this Province, and we do expect, Mr. Chairman, members of the House to take this issue seriously. We have a new Minister of Human Resources and Employment, otherwise known as Social Services, and there are a number of issues that have been identified as key issues in the area of poverty. I have been raising a number of them during this session of the House, since the House opened after Christmas; in particular, the issue of the school lunch program. I have raised this issue, Mr. Chairman, because it is one that leaps out at you from the report of Dr. Patricia Canning last fall, or last June, actually - it was not released until last fall - in which poverty and hunger of schoolchildren were identified as an impediment to education.

Now, I know the new Minister of Human Resources and Employment referred to the issue today in terms of child poverty, but what she did not mention in her speech was that the poverty rate for children in this Province has increased by 50 per cent since 1989. I am not using that statistic because the Liberal Government was elected in 1989. That just happens to be the statistic that I have from the Canadian Council on Social Welfare.

In 1989, 17 per cent of children in this Province were living below the poverty line. In 1995, there was 26 per cent. That is a 50 per cent increase in six years. So we are dealing with an issue that is getting worse, not better. I want to say to the minister that if you look at the - and I am sure the minister has, or perhaps she has not, because she was not in a social policy portfolio. She was in the portfolio of Works, Services and Transportation which is not directly involved with social policy.

The Social Policy Advisory Committee has made some recommendations as to what the key issues and trends are with respect to poverty and child poverty. The identification by the Social Policy Advisory Committee is the lack of increase in benefits for social services recipients, and talks about the cumulative impact of multiple cuts and changes that have occurred in recent years, placing a heavy burden on many who are least able to carry it.

I know the minister is also responsible for the Status of Women. The report goes on to say: Women in particular are affected by poverty, and children suffer a double burden. Child poverty is a function of family poverty, and part of a complex array of interrelated problems.

Mr. Chairman, the key issues for children identified by the Social Policy Advisory Committee are very interesting. The key issues for children start off with nutrition and food security. In other words, the children are not getting enough food. The key issue for children is nutrition and food security, number one; mitigation of poverty, number two; school meal programs in all schools, number three. That is the number three key issue for children in this Province.

It goes on to identify a number of other issues: promotion of breast-feeding is an obvious one, prenatal education nutrition, early identification and assessment of children with special needs. The top three issues for children identify poverty, lack of food security, and a need for school meal programs in all schools.

I have been presenting almost every day since the House has been open, every day that I have been here that there have been petitions presented, petitions on this issue of a school lunch program. I think two ministers have spoken on it, on the government side, only two. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has spoken on two occasions offering a great deal of sympathy for the issue of child hunger, and particularly child hunger as it affects learning in schools. The Minister of Education offered his comments at one point, indicating he thought that the voluntary sector was looking after this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I know that it has not. I think the minister knows that the voluntary sector is not looking after this issue. There are about, I think, seventy or eighty school lunch or breakfast programs in the Province. There are about 343 schools, I believe, in the Province. The voluntary sector is not looking after this problem and this issue. It is a key issue for so many children. More than 30 per cent of our schoolchildren are on social assistance - well, 25 per cent I think is the figure, of people who are the child hunger factor. There is no question that these 25 per cent are going to school hungry. There is a stigma-free way of delivering a program for children.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I wanted to acknowledge the Government House Leader's comments. I have to be real nice, and if I am real nice perhaps we will have that debated and maybe passed by the government. Perhaps we will have the Private Member's resolution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: So he is going to let it be debated but vote it down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, how much money (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: Not as much as they have put into yours.

The issue is an important one, and I am not going to be diverted by political activity on the other side of the House. The kind of political activity that I am interested in, the key issues I am interested in, are not the ones of partisan interest. They are ones that all parties should be behind, and I understand that there are members opposite who support the School Lunch Program, but I want to urge all members opposite, when they are considering the budget, when they are considering the kind of changes that are being made in the education system, and the need for children who grow up poor to have some help to change their chances in life, and it is identified again by the Social Policy Advisory Committee. It says accumulated risks of children who grow up in poverty are strong predictors of negative outcomes in childhood, such as failure at school.

Research shows - and I am skipping some - more than twice the rate of school problem, hyperactivity and emotional disorders, as children who are not poor. These impacts frequently carry over into adulthood and may lead to further cycles of poor parenting, abusive behaviour, and reduced ability to be self-sufficient and productive.

So we have a very serious problem identified not just by Dr. Patricia Canning in her report to government, but by the Social Policy Advisory Committee who not only heard from the people of this Province but also heard from experts. They make reference to a lot of studies. There are several pages, a bibliography attached there, and we have heard the talk from the Minister of Health, and I am sure the Minister of Human Resources and Employment would adopt the same approach, that we need to have evidence-based decision-making in government.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how much evidence you need. I think the Minister of Social Services himself has provided evidence.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. HARRIS: I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, that even when you are praising the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture he will not give you leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I can continue my praise of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for a moment... Despite his objections, I will continue my praise of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for a moment, over his objections.

I did want to say that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture himself provided a form of evidence that supports this petition, when he was talking about his experiences at Bishop Field Grammar School in relation to the child School Lunch Program, and how -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister was in my district -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he support the prayer of the petition?

MR. HARRIS: No, he supported the School Lunch Program, and he has provided evidence of the value of the School Lunch Program.

He talked about how he was in my district, in Bishop Field School, and experienced firsthand the effects that the school lunch program had on the children in that school who had benefitted from the program.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the other ministers want to say that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not know what he is talking about. I suspect that there may be some who believe that, but I would have to say that the minister does know what he is talking about in that regard, and he is known to have a great deal of compassion for children, and has displayed that in the past. But I want to urge all hon. members that this is a very serious policy issue, something that when considering the budget, when considering the final budget votes and the issues that are raised here, when considering the extra $30 million that has been socked away for a rainy day, for anomalies, for urgencies, for emergencies, I think if the government seriously looks at the issue of the school lunch program, looks at the savings that they are making in education, in particular, and decides to claw some of it back - I know the minister's district: Can the minister tell me how many school lunch programs are operating in his district? How many school lunch programs are operating in the district of St. Barbe? I would say, not very many. I would say the minister has a few dollars salted away himself. The minister's own district, I wouldn't say, has very many, if any, school lunch programs. Are there any, I say to the minister?

MR. FUREY: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: How many?

MR. FUREY: About five.

MR. HARRIS: About five. How many schools? Probably about twenty.

MR. FUREY: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: So, you know, the volunteer sector cannot meet the need. They just cannot do it. It is not possible for the need to be met by the approach that - and there is nothing wrong with the approach being taken. I mean, the people who are doing this work are very sincere and well meaning, but they just don't have the dollars, they don't have the ability, to deliver this program. They are not in a position to do it. It needs government acknowledgement of it, as a prime issue that can be done. It is one of these things that is doable, Mr. Chairman. It is not some pie in the sky, never can happen, something that you just wish for. It is something that can be done, and can be done for a fairly modest cost when one looks at the consequences.

A school meal program, identified as a number three key issue for children in this Province, I think, Mr. Chairman, deserves some consideration. It can also help in number one and two, obviously, nutrition and food security, and the mitigation of poverty. These two are number one and number two in the key issues for children. If you take those three issues together, the school meal program can go some way, at least, to providing for the nutritional needs of students, and can also do something in the way of mitigation of poverty, because it helps to mitigate some of the negative consequences of poverty which have been identified by the social policy advisory committee as being double the chance, double the risk, of failure at school, as a result of growing up in poverty.

Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be something that the new Minister of Human Resources and Employment can get her teeth into. Instead of going into a department being inundated with bad news, can come out of that with a program that says, we have to address this and we have to address it in concrete ways, in concrete steps. We are going to provide a program that provides a direct consequence to children in school, a school meal program that will guarantee a nutritious meal for children in school, give them an opportunity to lower the risk of school failure which has been identified by the social policy advisory committee, help with the nutritional needs and attack the thing that - I am sure she says, she said today and she has said many times, and her government has said, and all politicians are saying these days because it has become fashionable to say so, that we are actually doing something about that problem.

I thank the hon. members for leave to address this important concern.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw it. Withdraw.

MR. HARRIS: He cannot withdraw, he is not in his seat. He cannot be heard. You cannot hear him, Mr. Chairman.

I continue my praise of the Minister of Fisheries -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member, leave has been withdrawn.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: My good friend and colleague, the member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, may want to continue. If he does, I will grant him leave to continue. If he does, I will grant him leave to continue if he wanted. I will grant you an opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to take part in the concurrence debates of the Executive Council.

MR. EFFORD: Say something sensible.

MR. FITZGERALD: Say something sensible. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that that is what he has to start doing, saying something sensible. The minister went down to my district a couple of days ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I told the minister before when I had my hands in my pocket, but I won't repeat it, because the people up in his office heard it and agreed with me, the things that I said. But I won't repeat it, Mr. Chairman, because it isn't something that should be said in the House.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was down to my district the other day. I went down. They had a career day at the Discovery Collegiate. Something different, something that they should have in schools. It exposed the students to other people, to other (inaudible) people's ideas, and probably would spark a little bit of interest in somebody, where they could go forward and probably create some employment or pursue a career that would probably get them to get themselves a job.

One of the facilitators was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I don't know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Down in Bonavista South, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he have his hands in his pockets?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, from what I understand he did a good job, but he had the people lost. He went there and he carried on his same old speech that he has been taking across this Province year after year. He talked about the beach rocks, what a new industry it was, Mr. Chairman.

MR. EFFORD: Point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: He talked about the kelp, all the opportunities that were there for making pharmaceutical products and making beauty products, Mr. Chairman. He talked about everything that he has been -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, point of order, Mr. Chairman. For the hon. member to stand in this House and to give the misleading information that he has just done for the last two or three minutes, I have to correct it, the misinformation he has put before the House.

What I had to do in Bonavista last week was talk to 500 students, 125 each group, for twenty minutes, a motivational speech, because they were so depressed and lacking the representation of a good member in the House of Assembly. It took me all day Friday to build up some confidence (inaudible). The last thing they said when I left the school that afternoon was: We only wish we had you down here in our district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: No point of order, Mr. Chairman. I heard the real stories of what the students said the next day when I went down there of what they thought of the presentation put forward by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the silly things he brought forward.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, if he wanted to address something, if he wanted to show some concern about the fishery, maybe he should take the Minister of ITT to task over this ad that appeared in The Evening Telegram a few days ago. What a condescending ad, what a slight on the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. What a slight on every fish plant worker and every fisherman in this Province, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Put forward by the Minister of ITT in The Evening Telegram just last week.

Just look at it: If you think this is the only business in Newfoundland and Labrador - it shows fresh fish, $0.99 a pound - then think again. The giant Hibernia structure. That is a slap in the face to every fisherman, every fish plant worker, of this industry that sustained rural Newfoundland for hundreds of years. The man there, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, should give you a slap on the wrist, I say to the Minister of ITT.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't see it. Many phone calls came to the office, it was faxed in to me and I agree with them. It is a slight on the fishermen and fish plant workers of this Province. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that if he has not seen it then take a look at it because a lot of people are not very happy with this particular act. I give it to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture because to me it is a slight. It is something that should never, ever have been printed. I have no problem with putting forward a new industry, I say to the Minister of ITT and support it all the way, but let's not go knocking the industry that has been the backbone of this Province and has sustained us for the past 500 years in order to promote the other particular industry. Let's not go putting the fishery down any further than it has already gone. What it needs is a breath of life. It needs it. Now it is on life support.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well I am putting forward a concern that has been raised to me by at least three people, I say to the Minister of ITT. It may not be something that the minister has looked at in that particular light and I am sure it was not his intention to take a smack at the fishery and the fish plant workers but it is certainly coming across that way to many of the people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the first one that said that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am the third one, repeating what three other people told me, I say to the minister. Three other people not 300, three other people. I told them I would bring it forward in the House in debate and here it is.

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to see the Member for Topsail get up and talk about all the wonderful things that this party has done. All the wonderful things and all the positive things that is being done by this party right here today but, Mr. Chairman, if you talk to the thousands and thousands of people that are out there hurting without a job, without a place to go, without a place to turn to, having to probably leave the homes that they worked so hard for and built over the years, I can assure you that they are still looking for something positive to happen in this particular Province. They are certainly not about to bestow thanks and praise upon the government yet.

Down in my particular district, Mr. Chairman, where most of the people are upbeat with some of the things that are happening down there as it relates to the Cabot celebrations, especially in Bonavista, it is a situation whereby many people are looking forward to probably the beginning of a new industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I didn't say they were upset, looking forward to the beginning of a new industry. This year the Bonavista Peninsula will be highlighted. It will be the focal point of all North America when people congregate here to help us celebrate 500 years of life, through hardship and through toil. A celebration of the wonderful things that our forefathers have carved out of this rock with the unforgivable climate, Mr. Chairman, with the struggles and the many diversities that they faced over the years in order to live and survive and raise a family here on this rock. We are all very proud of that. It is a situation, I suppose, for once that we can show the world the hospitality or we can show the world the beauty of the Bonavista Peninsula.

Many volunteers are getting involved and are beginning to realize and see rural Newfoundland, see the beauty of their own communities and towns through the eyes of a tourist, through the eyes of a visitor from this Province. Most of the time we take for granted what we have and we don't see it as beauty. We don't see it as something that somebody else would want to pay thousands of dollars for to come and enjoy. It seems like we have been of the mind set that unless the sun shines every day, unless you can go out with your suntan oil and put on your shorts than we don't have anything to offer. Mr. Chairman, I can guarantee you there are lots of people who come to this Province to be able to enjoy the weather that we have here, to get away from the hot, humid weather that they have been accustomed to in the places where they live.

I know, you go down to Cape Bonavista in the summertime - many, many times I go there, and if I am in to town early in the morning I take a drive out to the cape, and you would be surprised the number of visitors you see there and the people you can talk to, from all over the world.

MR. OLDFORD: It is cold out there.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is cold out there, but they are dressed for it. They have their coats and their sweaters on, I say to the Member for Trinity North. They are prepared for it, Mr. Chairman, and they talk about the beauty and they talk about the wonderful things that we have to offer, where they can see whales in the water, they can see different types of sea birds, they can see icebergs; Newfoundland at its best. They go there and they get lost for hours, just taking in the many sights and sounds and the beauty of that particular area.

I went down to Elliston one day and there was a chap there sitting on the fence of a little park. He was looking at the sea bird colony out on one of the small islands off Elliston. For the first time I saw beauty there that I didn't see before, when he talked about the different types of birds. He had his binoculars there, and he pointed them out to me. He knew them quite well, Mr. Chairman; a gentleman from Maine down in the United States. Obviously he was a bird lover, a wildlife lover, if you would, and for the first time I saw beauty in that particular island.

Mr. Chairman, tourism is one area that I think offers some potential on the Bonavista Peninsula. We will never hire the number of people that we have seen displaced from our fish plants, never hire the number of people we saw displaced from our fishing boats, but it can certainly take up some of the slack. It can certainly take up some, I suppose, of the void that has been left and has put us in the situation we are in today with our fishery just about completely closed, the cod fishery on the Northeast Coast, especially in the Bonavista South - Trinty North area.

Drive up to Trinity and see the wonderful things that are on the go there in the summertime, with the Trinity Pageant and the number of people who are coming out to take in that particular pageant, Mr. Chairman. You will find that the pageant plays, I think, three days a week. The Member for Trinity North can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is three days a week. It is Sundays, Tuesdays - four days a week. You go down on the Bonavista Peninsula when that particular pageant is playing and you will not find a vacant room between Clarenville and Bonavista. Everything is filled up by people from local areas, from local Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, mainland Canada and from other places south of the border, coming out to see the Trinity Pageant, something that has caught on very fast.

Mr. Chairman, Trinity is light years ahead of most other places in Newfoundland, when it comes to tourism. It was a situation where they recognized what they had and they built on it. The people in Bonavista, Port Union and those places, Mr. Chairman, are only now beginning to catch up. It was a situation where those people didn't need tourism before. Tourists in Bonavista or Port Union meant a car with a strange license plate driving through the community. That was all it ever meant to them. They didn't need it, Mr. Chairman. They had their fish plants and they had their fishing boats that provided them with a good living, and they didn't need to look anywhere else. In fact, tourists to some of them at that particular time were almost like a nuisance. They were in their way in the big rush to get home for lunch and get back again in half an hour, which was the time they had for lunch.

Today they have to go and look and pursue every opportunity they can find in order to be able to survive and work in the Bonavistas and the Port Unions and the Catalinas of the world, Mr. Chairman. It is a situation whereby those people that grew up and only knew the fishery are finding it very difficult to adjust and do other things. They were good fishermen, the were good fish plant workers and they find it very hard to let go of their roots to go on and pursue other things knowing that that particular occupation may never afford them the ability again to go back and support and feed their families.

Mr. Chairman, we have looked at many things on that particular Peninsula -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - in that particular area, we have looked at many different things and even today I am still convinced the fishery is the only sustainable industry to provide them an opportunity to be able to continue to live and provide for their families in that particular area.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are going to be breaking for supper and return again at 6:45 p.m. Is that right? So, I will adjourn debate on -

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Please do not adjourn debate, lets just leave as if we are here and come back and when the hon. gentlemen says he can sit down, the Clerk I hope will get up and we will leave and come back and sit down at 6:45 p.m. and the parliamentary clock will continue to run. Is that not correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Correct.

MR. TULK: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I give a sermon I say to the Government House Leader, this time around. I will get him on the rebound and ask him some more detailed questions, I will leave my couple of hundred aside when I get him here.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They do not match up questions and answers I must say. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did not fool anybody by his comment there I saw on TV a few minutes ago. He did not fool anybody. I say to the minister, you said nothing. You said they are a sterling silver company, that is what he said, sterling silver was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Must better then the one you use (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure it is.

I think it was the Member for Topsail talking about our debt, I am not sure, I heard it from my office, so I just went back to my file and I pulled out a sheet showing what the debt of the Province is. In 1989 the debt of the Province was $4.8 billion, you look at the budget today on the debt of the Province and the debt of the Province today, at the end of last fiscal year, it was $6.87 billion, at the end of the last fiscal year. In other words we have increased our debt from $4.8 to $6.8 since 1989. In other words, we have increased it by $2 billion, on $4.8 billion, we increased it by forty-two per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: This is your budget, I took it from the figures estimates you have tabled. I took it from the one the government has tabled, that there is forty-two per cent more debt then we had in 1989. This is the sheet from your budget, if you want to take it there, I will table a copy if you want it to look at. We have increased, in fact, one year in a previous government, and to be honest with you, I do not take any delight in defending the Peckford government on over spending at all, in fact I do not defend it. Neither do I do -, and one year in which the previous Smallwood government spent forty per cent more money then they took in in revenue.

Now, to subject the people of our Province to that debt and to that expenditure and mortgaging our children's future is not acceptable.

AN HON. MEMBER: What would you do?

MR. SULLIVAN: What would I do? I have said on many occasions what we would do. I said I would get rid of several members of the House of Assembly seats. I would cut down -

AN HON. MEMBER: Save $100,000 (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No not $100,000, yes it would save on each seat, roughly that, I will agree with the minister. It would save a salary, it would save a secretary and some other support, it would be one hundred and some thousand, not much.

AN HON. MEMBER: What (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would cut down the size of Cabinet. Each Cabinet minister is another half-a-million dollars –

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. SULLIVAN: Cut down Cabinet by twelve. In fact, the United States is run by less people than the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you imagine that, the United States, and they have an economy and they have an unemployment rate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I am getting there. - I would fire the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that is what I would do, I would fire him for what I call gross incompetence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes. We need a fishery that will save this Province, it will not be -

AN HON. MEMBER: If you were the Premier, why would you fire the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would fire that Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: You will never get that chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your platform?

MR. SULLIVAN: We cannot give away all our platform. We cannot do that. Oh, don't worry, he will know, it won't be a Hope For a Better Tomorrow and turn around and change their minds; we won't make false promises I can tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How many fish plants?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: None that I set up, not one.

MR. TULK: Not in that (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not me, no.

MR. TULK: But you were part of that (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I was not. I was not a part of the policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are denying your heritage.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not denying my heritage at all. When I participate in a policy I will take credit for any policy I participate in, I can tell you in the process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You ask the people in my district what promises I made and you will find out, and if anybody attended the news conference that day and listened to my statements that day, on that very day it was carried on the media, and you would see where I stood and I made that very clear and very precise exactly what I said.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I said it on that day. I sat at the table and I say to the Government House Leader, I stated clearly my beliefs. It is the interpretation of the policy that was a problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would fire you again. Clyde fired him twice, didn't he, or once? He fired him twice because he keeps coming back. Don't you worry, when that minister, the Member for Port de Grave is fired at least once or twice, we know that we are on an even keel I could say to him. That is what I would say.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Was the hon. gentleman part of a team that last year, in the provincial election said: Through implementation of the fishery revival plan, we expect that up to seventy-five fish plants will resume operations? Now, was he part of that team or was he already sticking Verge in the back with a knife?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, I will tell you exactly where I am in that policy if you want to listen. If you want to listen I will tell you exactly where I was on that statement and I can tell you that anything I do is up front and anybody over here who deals with me knows that and any of the reputable ministers I have dealt with will tell you that, I do not say one thing in one place and something else - I won't say like the person campaigning in Ferryland, when he was in the Goulds his father was a farmer, when he was in Ferryland, his father was a fisherman. That is what he stated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will comment on that. If you want to listen I will comment; if he does not, I will not, it is as simple as that. If you would like a comment I will explain it and if you are not prepared to listen, I will not it is as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you want an explanation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said at the news conference that day, I was asked a question by Doug Letto of CBC, and I indicated that during a downturn in the fishery many of the skilled people in the workforce in the fishery today, what we call fish-cutters and people who are skilled are most -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished, I will explain exactly what I said. I will tell you exactly what I stated. I said: many people today are in their forties and getting older, I don't expect a quick rebound on the fishery to maintain those skills of filleting and cutting, they will not be there in the future. We need a means where we can bring in on an initial basis, certain amounts of frozen cod to supplement existing operations to bring them up to a certain level where you can get more than six weeks work, you can get ten -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait, until I am finished. - ten or twelve weeks work -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I read the policy but I was not involved in writing the policy and I can tell you I have indicated what I have said in the process of explaining. You do not want to hear an explanation of it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said, we cannot stop the clock for several years and expect to pick up skills as skills transfer, maintenance skills are important to an industry and there has to be mechanisms to bring in extra work to supplement the six and eight weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know, to be honest with you. I worked in health policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: To be honest with you, I don't know. I looked after health policy. I went on public forums around the Province, and I have stated my position. I stated my position that day. It is the interpretation, I can tell you, that people put on it, that the Liberals put on it. It is not the policy; it was the interpretation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. There were seventy-five fish plants operating in the Province already, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-five more. You didn't know about that? You didn't agree with it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say that. The minister must not be listening well. He cannot listen. We should send him a copy of Hansard tomorrow so he can read what it says.

I have indicated that in July of 1992 the fishery shut down - July 2 to be exact. A lot of plants shut that year and opened next year. Many plants shut down and opened up later, and they are still opening up today.

The Minister of Fisheries tells us we can't depend only on cod; we have to supplement our operations with cod, whether it is from the Barents Sea, the Russian cod, to supplement the operations there. It is important. Companies have done it already, and the person who criticized it in public in the business is the person who was doing the same thing himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: The person who criticized it. Research it, check it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill Barry?

MR. SULLIVAN: You said that, not me. I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not my brother's partner. My brother is not a partner to anyone; he is an employee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Let me see; I have to read it. Let me see. How do I know what it is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let me read it to you.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fishery revival plan (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, a revival plan for the fishery. The minister is shouting it out every day. You cannot read. Up to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Part of what? I have to see it to know what I am part of. Pass it over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How do I know that is the Blue Book?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I explained it. I am part of the policy. Sure, I am part of the policy, and I explained it, but the minister did not like it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe in that policy?

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you believe in a better tomorrow?

Can you imagine, the Premier stood on a piece of steel in Marystown and said: Take this piece of steel, take me and throw me over the wharf if we don't have a natural gas plant in Marystown. In comes Ian Stratton down to Hotel Newfoundland, helicopters -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Whatever he was. I don't care what he was. He came in. They had a big reception at Hotel Newfoundland. That wasn't enough. They flew, at public expense, to Marystown for a natural gas plant, a crew from Texas. I said it was natural gas. A lot of hot air is what it was, a tremendous gas plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of flatulence.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a lot of flatulence, I must say.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have an opinion on everything.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I have an opinion on everything.

I agree with the interpretation we put forward, not the interpretation you use.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, I believe in St. John's West. I don't know who is going to win or lose. I can tell you that there will be seats - I predict you are going to win, but I don't know. There is only one I know who is going to win in this Province. Guaranteed it isn't going to be close in this Province. Ask the Member for Windsor - Springdale who I bet with. It isn't going to be close.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: Ask him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think that a government should balance the budget over four years?

MR. SULLIVAN: I believe a government should balance the budget faster if it can, but definitely it has to balance it over its term of office, and not have more debt by the time it goes out of office then when it came in. I agree with that. That is why if you don't do it in one year - listen, if you have hard times for four years in a row, you had better be prepared for hard times for a long term.

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you balance the budget?

MR. SULLIVAN: How would you balance it? We would take in as much revenue as we would spend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. How would you do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Instead of looking at the expenditure side we would look at the revenue side. Government -

AN HON. MEMBER: So you would increase taxes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I didn't say that! Increase jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. SULLIVAN: How? When I would take all those excursions to Chile, I would check out copper smelters instead of wineries, and come back to the Province with companies here. When I go to the Far East I would look for copper smelters, not wineries, and that is how I would create jobs here in the Province! We would put hundreds of people to work here in the Province. There are people out telling us. The minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: Can you understand, can anyone understand, why Rex Gibbons would stand in this House and tell us in Hansard on December 14, and the Premier stand in this House -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and tell us it is not economically viable to have a copper smelter in this Province?

CHAIR: The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what he told us.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: He told us he couldn't tell us in this House. He said it is not economically viable. Inco, Stewart Gendron told me in my office: It is not economically viable for a copper smelter. I questioned it, I ask: Why isn't it? The Premier said no, the minister Dr. Gibbons said no, Voisey's Bay said no. We said, and the colleague for Baie Verte asked the question, and I've asked it many times: Why not? Because Inco says so? Is that why?

You should question why not. Why aren't the copper smelter jobs in this Province? Sixty-five thousand tons of copper just from Voisey's Bay alone, when copper smelters around this world are bringing in their supply of copper from other sources that have lower percentages of copper available in proximity than here in this Province. That is why we should exhaust every avenue open in creating jobs in this Province. We should be saying to the big companies: Why not? Why kowtow and bow over to the big corporate multi-billion dollar giants?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Just like the Three Musketeers, one for all, all for one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Every policy is there, yes, every one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The new Liberal government... boy, I can't read that, that is too hypocritical. If I said that I would have to say the Liberals are telling lies. That is what I would say. As John Crosbie said in the House of Commons, he stood and said: He is a liar. Mr. Speaker stood and said: I ask the member to withdraw that comment. Mr. Crosbie said: Your Honour, I didn't mean to say he was a liar. I meant to say he was a Liberal and I couldn't tell the difference. That is what he said. I don't know if it is witty.

My, what an interesting book. How many blank pages? Just like their policy today. First two pages are blank, the third page is blank. Three blank pages, four pages. A better tomorrow. That is a negative page, that is good for two pages. Five pages, six pages, seven pages. Twenty-six blank pages. Can you imagine? A policy with twenty-six blanks. No wonder this government is firing blanks since it got elected. It hasn't fired any real shots.

I must say that I'm glad the minister is back here so he can give us some other non-answers to some detailed questions. I did learn one thing today. I did learn that the Premier's French lessons are paid out of the public treasury of this Province.

We did learn that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. And I think they are getting a tremendous return on their investment here in the Province. Can you imagine if we didn't have an opposition what this government would do? Look what they did in Ottawa with no opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. Why not? I will speak Latin: amanis, amatis, amant, amabo, amabis, amabat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did it for six years. I studied Latin, by the way, did a few courses in university. I studied some Latin. We had to do it then at university. I was doing premed in the science area and we had to do Latin.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are familiar with the phrase, mea culpa?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mea culpa, yes. I am vaguely familiar with the phrase. I have been hearing it so often coming from that side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen! That is what John Efford calls the mea culpa from Trinity.

MR. SULLIVAN: Calls who? Mea who?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) John Efford called mea culpa.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. Okay. In this case, he cannot blame anybody but himself, I guess; mea culpa. By the way, culpa is first nominative singular, is it not? I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did some Latin. It is a long while ago, a long while back. Started in Grade VIII and finished second year university Latin. It is a very good subject, Latin, for the English language, for learning words. It is tremendous for vocabulary and use of the English language. Far better than French in terms of learning the basic roots of the English language.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, yes. I must say, it is quite good.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why you go (inaudible) a month, is it not?

MR. SULLIVAN: I know there are a lot of people here jumping up and down. They are telling me to sit down and give someone else a chance to get up.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he is enjoying the newspaper. When I come back I will have a few questions for him. I will give my colleagues an opportunity now.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Earlier this afternoon I had some discussions with the Opposition House Leader as to whether he would give leave, and by agreement, move first reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act," Bill No. 13; just so we could distribute it and get it ready for debate.

MR. HARRIS: You didn't ask me.

MR. TULK: I didn't say I asked the hon. gentleman, and I understand that you can withhold leave. I just spoke to the Opposition House Leader and we agreed. I would hope that the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi would agree to the same thing, so we can distribute the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would move first reading.

CHAIR: The Chair is looking for clarification. Normally first reading of a bill is done in the House, not in Committee, but we can do anything by leave. So I am just assuming -

MR. TULK: That is what we are asking for, agreement to do that.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act," carried. (Bill No. 13)

On motion, Bill No. 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to rise and join in debate on the many interesting topics before us today and this evening. Mr. Chairman, just a few moments ago I had a telephone call from yet another unhappy parent representing another unhappy school council in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, they are not ready, I say to the Opposition House Leader.

I spoke with a parent from the community of Badger, who in fact is the chairman of a school council in Badger. He has expressed great displeasure with again, decisions that are being made by boards, which boards are simply, once again, not paying attention to what the people, what the parents and what the representatives of the school councils are saying as they make their various representations to the school boards throughout the Province. Again, it is with frustration that these parents make their concerns known and it is with disgust, I would say, Mr. Chairman, as these parents continue to bang their heads against a brick wall hoping that school boards will listen to the concerns that are being voiced. That was just over the supper hour, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier today, I spoke with a parent in the area of Harbour Grace, who expressed similar dissatisfaction, similar disgust with that particular school board. Again, in this case, it was the Avalon West Board not paying any attention to the concerns which were being addressed - parents representing St. Francis, in that particular case.

We have a variety of concerns, Mr. Chairman, I must say, not to the extent that denominational issues - one would think that denominational issues would be the forerunner of concern but they are not. They are mostly issues dealing with the closure of schools, the designation of schools where certain grades are going to be kept in schools. For example, I believe in Badger the high school children are being bused to Grand Falls and, of course, it is that kind of decision which really upsets the parents in the community and who, while making representation as part of school councils, feel the frustration when these representations are being made to board members and the boards continue to turn down their request. The boards continue to deny the request, which when I listen to the arguments, very often are more than reasonable. I listen to what appear to be very genuine concerns by parents and by community leaders in the various communities, appear to be very legitimate, very genuine.

So the question once again has to be asked: Why is it, at such a critical time, when we are faced with such critical decisions as a part of the education reform process, Mr. Chairman, that in many instances, if not all instances, the boards refuse to review decisions and are afraid to change the decisions which are being made? There has to be a reason.

Mr. Chairman, the key to the solution is this: It will take a strong will by an active participating Minister of Education who is willing to jump into the fray, to listen to the concerns of the parents and the communities, to listen to these statutorily based school councils who will make legal representation through the legal avenue which has been established. It takes a Minister of Education who has a will, a desire and a willingness to listen. But, of course, as we have heard over and over again, and the minister is the first to admit it, he is the first to say publicly, he is the first to say in this hon. House, `No, I will leave it to the boards, I will leave it to the appointed school boards.'

The questions have to be asked once again, Mr. Chairman: Who is going to have a say in the direction of education reform in this Province? What avenues, what people are prepared to listen to concerns of these individuals? Who is going to stand up and say: Yes, the parents of Brigus or the parents of Brownsdale or the parents of Badger or Harbour Grace, and calls I had today, who is going to listen? Up to this point there is nobody. The proposal that was made some while ago with respect to the appointment of an education Ombudsman has obviously fallen on deaf ears, Mr. Chairman. It is not seen as even a credible alternative at a time when these critical and somewhat final decisions are being made.

Mr. Chairman, a report was prepared and released during the Fall of 1996 entitled: Special Matters. It has been referred to by the Minster of Education and by members on this side of the House on a fairly regular basis, because it deals with some of the very special concerns in classrooms, in schools in Newfoundland and Labrador today. For example, there is a chapter which is dedicated to special education policy and procedure. There are chapters that deal with specific needs and challenging needs and learning disabilities of students in our classroom, services for sick children and so on. But perhaps one of the most alarming chapters - and it has been refereed to, I know, by the member to my right and by members on this side of the House - has to deal with the degree of child poverty which continues to exist amongst children within our schools in the Province. A chapter has been dedicated -chapter three, and it is simply entitled `Poverty in Education' and a number of recommendations are found; in fact there are some twenty-four recommendations in total, dealing with what school boards and school trustees and school administrators ought to take into account when dealing with what appears to be, according to this report, very serious problems in our schools with respect to malnutrition and with respect to the number of children who are in fact, at or below the poverty level.

The report source is the Canadian Council on Social Development and it states that over eighteen per cent of families which represents 38,000 almost 40,000 children live below the poverty line and in single parent homes and this particular statistic, Mr. Chairman, is somewhat alarming, in single parent homes the poverty rate for children is seventy-three per cent.

Now, just take some time, I say to members, to really grasp that statistic. According to this report, in single parent homes the poverty rate, when using the standard as found in the Canadian Council on Social Development, is some seventy-three per cent. It is an alarming statistic and one which we all as member of this House, as members of constituents throughout Newfoundland and Labrador must be mindful of at all times because it drives home to us the tragedy which exists amongst a significant number of young people attending schools in our Province on a daily basis. These figures were confirmed by numbers in the report by the National Council on Welfare, of course, which is a federal release. They used definitions and cut-offs supplied by Statistics Canada, again federal documentation, and the cut-offs represent levels of gross income where people spend disproportionate amounts of money for food, shelter and clothing.

Mr. Chairman, the average Canadian family spends 36.2 per cent of income on these things - that is in accordance with data in the calender year of 1986. The bureau has set the cut-off at twenty points higher than this, so that would equal 56.2 per cent. In other words, any family that has to spend more then 56.2 per cent of gross income on food, shelter and clothing is considered to live below the poverty line. So when we use that assessment and we use those criteria in an analysis of determining when a child lives below, equal to, or greater than the poverty level, we have some almost 40 per cent of children - and again, the statistic which I referred to earlier, 73 per cent, when we consider children from single parent homes.

In 1994, Mr. Chairman, the cut-off for rural areas was $10,538 for a family of one, $14,286 for a family of two, $18,157 for a family of three, $20,905 for a family of four, and $22,841 for a family of five, and so on. The larger the city, the more you would need to be above the poverty line. So again, this rough analysis, and this rough criteria, give members some indication as to what data and what criteria are being considered in an analysis of when a child is considered to be on poverty.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No leave.

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

MR. EFFORD: Where did you come from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Your time is up. If the member is questioning the Chair he will be sat in his place. So he could either continue with debate now or the question will be called.

MR. EFFORD: What have we turned into? Mr. Chairman, this is tormenting, this is. I will begin. Page 23: "A PC Government will find the funds to implement this plan by eliminating...," and eliminating and eliminating.

Page 22: "establish a Fishery Revival Plan (FRP), which will help put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians back to work and prepare them to participate in a brighter future for the Province. We will work out the details of the Fishery Revival Plan through consultation with industry representatives. However, it will have the following main features:

"(a) A PC Government will provide funding in the amount of $25 million per year for at least the next 3 years, aimed at maintaining skills required to have a world-class fish processing industry..." Twenty-five million dollars for three years aimed at having a skilled workforce equal to any workforce in the fishing industry, in the fishery, of the future, but we have no fish.

Can you imagine putting $75 million - we already have 212 fish plants in this Province. We have 175 groundfish licence plants - and we are going to open up another $75 million-worth of fish plants? We are going to train the workforce to fillet fish, but we have no fish. That is a good beginning. Now, it gets better.

Page 23: "Through implementation of the Fishery Revival Plan, we expect that up to 75 fish plants will be able to resume operation." Seventy-five million over the three-year period, seventy-five fish plants, and a trained workforce with no fish. We are going along good.

Let me read this one. Let us forget about the fish for a second. Let the Leader of the Opposition deal with this question, seriously. From page 11: "set priorities for program delivery and reduce spending on expendable and low-priority programs." What programs are expendable?

Let us go on to his most recent policy, how to deal with the deficit of Newfoundland. I asked him to name specifically what the programs are that he is going to implement. Number one, get rid of several members in the House of Assembly. Let us say seven members. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Seven members on an average of $100,000, $200,000 - give him the benefit of the doubt. That is $1.5 million. Someone should keep track of this. Cut Cabinet, no backbenchers; now members on the other side, the Opposition, cut Cabinet to twelve. You stand a chance getting in there, Paul, cutting Cabinet members to twelve so we are down from fifteen to twelve, another 300,000, so why not a million each.

Now, this is the one that is going to hit the box.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. EFFORD: No Department of Fishery and Aquaculture, fire the Minister of Fishery and Aquaculture. So we are now going to have a PC Government, reduce the deficit by spending $1.8 million and we are not going to have a Department of Fishery and Aquaculture. Now there is a real prospective for the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fish plant?

MR. EFFORD: I am not to that yet. Now, let us recap all of this; let us recap what I have said today. We are going to spend $25 million for three years - just $75 million to train a skilled workforce for the fisheries of the future. We are going to re-open seventy-five fish plants over the three-year period. We have no fish and we have no Department of Fishery and Aquaculture.

Now you are heading down the right track. Eliminate the payroll tax during our mandate to stimulate economic activity and job creation that will generate new tax revenues and lose $70 million a year. We have no fish, we have seventy-five plants open, we have no Department of Fishery and Aquaculture and we are going to eliminate the payroll tax and lose $70 million. Buddy, you are on the right track, you are on the right track.

I would say, about the same track this one was on (inaudible) and, Mr. Chairman, I am going to read for the record, an almost identical, logical (inaudible) of what the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition is on, if he forms the government. Allow me the pleasure of reading this and I will begin with the title: Sweet, Sour, Spice, Cucumber Pickles Continues. Now, this is where the processing comes in. You have to listen now because this is important, you have to listen: Process for fifteen minutes in boiling water bath. I have to read that again. Process for fifteen minutes in boiling water bath.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

MR. EFFORD: I don't know. You will have to figure that one out. Now it goes on, the next three lines -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Listen now, listen. Boiling water bath, make sure there is a rack on the bottom of the boiler to keep the jars from cracking when they come in contact with heat. A wire rack is fine. Fill the boiler with water - listen, you have to listen, you cannot miss this. Fill the boiler with water to about jar-height bringing it to a rapid boil. Lower your filled jars ensuring that they do not touch one another and make sure whenever you have put all of the jars in the pot, that the boiling water covers them at least one inch. Process for fifty minutes ensuring that boiling water is added to keep it one inch over the height of the jars. It gets better, oh it gets better. I used about ten pounds of cucumbers and divide the remaining ingredients in half and it worked out fine. Now, it gets better. Remove jars from boiling water and let cool on a rack.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same one, would it be the same rack that you had (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, a wire rack, you have the same wire rack. Now it gets better.

Touch the lids - oh now, listen to this: Touch the lids to ensure they have sealed; they will feel firm and would not bend inwards to the touch and if an occasional one is not sealed, refrigerate and eat first. Now it gets better, Mr. Chairman.

Oh yes, you have to listen to the last line, there is a lot of deep though put into this one. The receipt is an adaptation from the Joy of Cooking. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I just read out here for the hon. Leader of the Opposition, opening up seventy-five fish plants with $75 million and no fish, makes just about as much sense as that receipt for sweet, sour, spice cucumber pickles continued.

AN HON. MEMBER: But they know about making choices.

MR. TULK: What about Bev.

MR. EFFORD: We haven't got to Bev yet.

I just heard one of my colleagues back there say that is a good receipt. I am getting worried.

Governing involves making choices, yes it does really, seriously lets get down - it does involve making real serious choices, often these choices are difficult. Well, let me tell you about one of the difficult choices they had to make and this was a very difficult choice that they had to make and it is highlighted here and this is The Right Agenda For The People, the PC party of Newfoundland and Labrador has the right agenda for the people. Fiscal responsibility -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. EFFORD: Can I have leave?

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

An opportunity to get a few comments before I rush off to a meeting, but I will be back to finish it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it will not no. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he thinks so much of his receipt from his colleague the Member for Humber Valley, the minister is sprung. Charlie Power said: I can't take this anymore, I can't take this expenditure of government money, I got to get out, he said. What they are doing is not right, I have to get out, he said and the minister tells us -, what a hypocrite, he tells us, a moratorium he said, we cannot keep the plants closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your words.

MR. SULLIVAN: Other species, he said, underutilized species, get all of these plants open he said, that is what he is telling us. Is he a hypocrite in indicating -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, is he. I did not say he was.

MR. TULK: You said it before that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I withdraw the first hypocrite and the last two. Is he a hypocrite, the last two -

MR. TULK: You can't do through the back door what you are not allowed to do through the front.

MR. SULLIVAN: You can't. I am asking is he a hypocrite?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't ask that question because what (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You can ask it, sure you can. I am asking, is he a hypocrite? If the Government House Leader tells me he is not, I will believe him, that is what I will say.

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

Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman called the Member for Port au Grave a hypocrite, he withdrew that and then went on to say: is he a hypocrite? Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a well known ruling in the House, a well known precedent in this House, that you cannot do through the back door what you are not allowed to do through the front door. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the word hypocrite completely.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not on record in this House, as calling the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture a hypocrite, I would never do that. I asked this House, is he one? If they tell me no, I will accept that. I asked an honest question, I would like to have an answer. I an not implying he is. I could have asked you is he not a hypocrite, would that be implying he is not. I did not make a statement indicating that, I asked a question and it is certainly, I advocate, Mr. Chairman, that -

MR. TULK: Withdraw it, be a man and withdraw it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I made the statement initially and I withdrew it. I say to the Government House Leader, I made the statement, I withdrew it, initially when I said he is a hypocrite. I withdraw that and I apologize, but I asked the question after. I'm not implying he is, I'm asking the question. Simple as that. You can ask the question in this House and it isn't imputing motives, or it is not implying things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you are.

CHAIR: Since the Chair doesn't have a clear understanding of the conversation between the two hon. members, I ask that we take a brief recess. The Chair will return to make a ruling at that particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Recess

 

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has had a chance to review the conversation between the Leader of the Opposition and the Government House Leader. It is quite clear that the word hypocrite is unparliamentary on page 145 of Beauchesne. In the context that he had used it, in the second part of his conversation, it was obvious he was trying to do in another way what was put forward in the beginning. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, or in his absence the House Leader -

MR. TULK: I will tell you what, Mr. Chairman. We will wait for the hon. gentleman to come back.

CHAIR: Is he coming back?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: It is clearly undemocratic -

MR. TULK: I don't believe that it is possible for one member to withdraw for another. I would ask that we wait on the hon. member to come back and then ask him to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: We will carry on with the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to keep it down now to some of the policies of the former government. I'm not going to refer to the pickle book or the cucumber recipes, not yet. What we have listened to over the last number of weeks since the House opened is a continued attack by the Leader of the Opposition on this government, and in particular the Ministers of Health and Education, in the way in which we spend the money on essential services that the people of this Province need.

What they don't understand and what they have never realized and looked at is the vast geography of this Province, 550,000 people scattered over a piece of land four times larger than the country of Japan, which has in excess of 120 million people. To deliver services to those people is a very costly job because you have a vast land, a small population, and a very low tax base. This is what most people in the Province don't understand. It is difficult for any government, for any group of people, to put together a financial plan that is going to address the financial needs of people in this Province, a population of 550,000, where the tax base has been decreasing on an annual basis for the last eight to ten years. Because, number one, of the closure of the cod fishery. The spin-off factor. We have 25,000 people, 30,000 people unemployed.

Let's look at some of the policies of the PC Party during the last election. On page 11, a Spending Policy: "A PC Governing will: balance the budget over four years..." If you are going to balance a budget, you have to eliminate spending, because you don't have the tax base -

AN HON. MEMBER: Or increase revenue, John.

MR. EFFORD: That is what I said. You don't have the tax base. You have a closed fishery. Unless there is a magic number where you can take 25,000 people or 30,000 people who are unemployed because of the groundfish moratorium and put them to work and create a tax base on the other 15 per cent or 20 per cent unemployed in the Province and find jobs for everybody in the Province who are out of work, you cannot increase revenues. Our population is 500,000 to 550,000 - 560,000 people. We are scattered over 400 or 500 communities over the coastline of this vast land of ours, 30,000 people in Coastal Labrador and the tax base is not there. Yes, if you could increase revenues you will resolve the problem but the revenues are not there. You still have to decrease the deficit because the world banking community won't allow you to continue and borrow money and increase your deficit.

My hon. colleague from Topsail said earlier, when we took over government in '89 we had in excess of a $6 billion debt, paying out $585 million annually in interest. Now there is a problem and somebody has to use some business management concept to get that in writing, `yes, if...'. Yes if we had the revenues we would not have a deficit but we don't have the revenue so therefore we have a deficit. So there is only one other way, to realign government spending, to cut government spending, to readjust how government is administered, to readjust how the whole Province is administered, both from the provincial and the municipal level. Somebody has to pay the piper.

So one of the policies, "A PC Government will balance the budget...". That's the same policy as a Liberal government. We will balance the budget over four years through a combination of measures to stimulate economic growth and reorder spending priorities. That is what I just said, stimulate economic growth and reorder spending priorities. In other words, readminister, set down a whole new government, how it spends and how it administers in all of its departments. In other words, cut people.

Now, "deficits designed to protect funding for essential services in the lean years will be offset with planned surpluses in the growth years." Fine but you are going to have lean years before you have the growth years. So what do you do in the meantime? Do exactly as we are doing, reorganize, restructure, cut spending in the lean years. When we get into the good times, which we will, next year when we get into Voisey's Bay, we get into the smelter, we get into Hibernia, we get into Terra Nova, we get into the reopening of the fisheries in the next decade, we will hopefully have surpluses and when we have those surpluses then you can provide for the future lean years but we are talking about the lean years today.

Now, "fix the rate of growth in borrowing below the rate of real growth in GDP, thus bringing down the debt-to-GDP ratio." Nothing new in that, common sense. "Re-establish an Expenditure Review Committee to identify..." listen to this one, re-establish - anybody who has been (inaudible) fix the rate of growth of borrowing. You don't borrow every time that you have a will to borrow. You borrow according to what you can pay back. It is obvious to anybody who has had any business background. "Re-establish an Expenditure Review Committee" re: program review. A program review committee to look at how government spends its money, to look at department by department by department.

Now let's look at the last one on the page, "set priorities for program delivery and reduce spending on expendable and low-priority programs." What are the low-priority programs? Is that health care? Is that education or is that social services? Because that is the three departments in government which spends the bulk of the budget. Where can you cut, from the Department of Fisheries? We are down from a $38 million annual budget to $9 million. Now you can close it out, as the Leader of the Opposition said, close out the Department of Fisheries but you have to remember, he is going to open seventy-five new fish plants. He is going to train a workforce but he has no fish and he is going to close the Department of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is going to give them seventy-five fish plants with 300,000 pounds each.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peckford never had any intestinal fortitude, remember that?

MR. EFFORD: Now listen to this one, `raise new revenues from new economic activity rather than new taxes.' There is nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong. When the new economic activities take place you raise revenues, but in the meantime, the four or five or six years leading into the new economic activity, what do you do? You do exactly as we are doing. You cannot pull the rabbit out of the hat. You cannot wave the magic wand and make that great debt that we have in this Province disappear. If you want to get careless and reckless, and start borrowing more money, there is only one problem you will have in the future. While we enjoy the luxury of being political and borrowing, and driving the Province further in debt, our children and our grandchildren will have to pay it off; and any elected official, any minister in any government in this country of ours, or this Province, thinking that way does not deserve to be there.

AN HON. MEMBER: And their federal leader talking about a tax break (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Exactly, their federal leader talking about a tax break. When you cut taxes, what do you do with your revenue? You cut deficit, you lay off more people, you cut out health service, you cut out education, and you cut out social services.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you pass it on to your children.

MR. EFFORD: And you pass it along to your children and your grandchildren if you don't cut the programs and you cut taxes, and you borrow more money to keep up with the needs of essential services in this Province. You cannot have it both ways.

It is no good getting up in front of people in a political speech to make them feel good to try to get their vote; you have to be honest with people. You have to be direct with people and say: We are not willing, as a government of the day, to drive our children and our grandchildren, for the rest of their lives, paying off for the silly mistakes that we, as government officials, would make. I am not going to be part of it. I would rather resign immediately than be part of any government that would cause my children and my grandchildren to pay off my debt, that I was doing just for the sake of getting elected. It is not worth it. It is stupid, and it is ridiculous to even think about it, and that is what this is saying: raise new revenues from new economic activity. And you can only do that by borrowing money to do it.

We have a lot of opportunities in this Province. We are going to have short-term pain for long-term gain, and if the people of this Province, at the end of the day, wish to vote against a government that is introducing measures to create a good future in economic activity for the children and the grandchildren of our future, then that is what they should do if that is what they wish to do. But for the selfishness of having short-term pain to pay for the mistakes of the past, to go on into a bright future, I am satisfied to pay the political expense. I am satisfied to take the heat. I am satisfied to meet the protestors on the street. I am satisfied, as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to tell them that I would rather see people in a fishing boat than out begging for hand-outs from any level of government, because whether it is a TAGS program or an NCARP program, it is only the same as social services. It is an income to merely exist from day to day, and the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian would rather be back in the fishing boat, and I would work with any individual in this Province to get them back to work in the industry. Whether it is processing or harvesting or farming, or woodcutting or whatever, people want to work for a reasonable living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I wanted to stand and respond to some of the remarks and comments made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province. It is probably one of the most sincere, non-partisan political speeches I have heard from that minister since I have been here, four years, and I would like to comment on some of it because there is a great deal of it that I agree with.

I would like to deal with borrowing first. There is no doubt that this Province out-borrowed itself between 1979 and 1989. History tells us that clearly. There is nobody in this Legislature today, I would think, on either side of the House, who would follow that path or follow that line, that happened during that period. But borrowing the amount of money that was borrowed over that period of time, or the amounts that governments borrowed subsequent to that, is not limited only to Tories. It is not limited only to the government within that period of time.

Between 1979 and 1995, the government that borrowed the most money in one given year was a Liberal government under former Premier Clyde Wells. In 1992, $341 million was borrowed on the foreign market, but outside of that, the point that the minister makes is correct, and it is dead on, it is very correct, that we cannot continue down that path and there is a need identified and it is not peculiar to any political party, it is just the facts and the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in as citizens of this Province today, that there is a need to come to terms with that and come to terms with it quickly.

The minister talks about readjustment and he talks about taking advantage of opportunities, he talks about short-term pain for long-term gain, he talks about the need to, not only cut spending, but the need to increase revenue because that is where our problem lies, it is a revenue crunch and why we do not have significant revenue coming into the Province in order to cover the basic services of government, what people expect they should get from government because of the taxes they pay.

Now, I have a couple of suggestions because sometimes, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that it is not just members on this side of the House that do not listen, so to speak, and that is not peculiar to members in Opposition because there are times and instances, and the facts will speak for themselves, that government has not either. Now, if we want to look at one project, just one project in this Province today, that we are not reaping the benefits we should be reaping from it, if we want to talk about something that is current that means something, that creates jobs, that produces revenue, that can go a long way in assisting us to provide more services, so in terms of trying to come to grips with the financial reality we face, lets look at one project, lets talk about the Terra Nova project.

Let me ask the minister, does he believe, for one moment, that the people of this Province are getting the maximum benefit from the Terra Nova oil project? Does he believe it? Does he believe that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who is qualified to go to work on that project will find work on that project? Does he believe that the provincial government, his colleagues, he may be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but he sits around the Cabinet table when these decisions are made and discussed, does he believe, for an instant, and if he does I would like to know why he believes it, I would like him to demonstrate clearly what government has done to show and to demonstrate to people in this Province that the maximum benefit is realized. Does he believe that the provincial Department of Education is doing whatever it can within its power, both legislatively, regulatory and through negotiation with the Terra Nova partner to get the maximum benefit for Newfoundlanders and Labradorian?

Let me tell him what they are not doing. A constructive set of recommendations and suggestions. I have a document here called: Clearly Defining Benefits For The Newfoundland and Labrador Workforce, from the Terra Nova OffShore Oil and Gas Development Project, a presentation, submission I made to the panel, some recommendations that would go a long way, an awful long way I say to the minister in increasing government, increasing the number of people that could be employed thus decreasing unemployment on one significant project. Here are some of the recommendations: (1) under employment and training: The provincial government maintain the skills and certifications and qualifications registry of positions available and that qualifies local personnel for each position, done through and coordinated with an established labour and business representatives, stakeholders. Why was there a need to make such a recommendation? Does the minister know that? Does he understand why there was a need for that recommendation? If he does not let me put it on the record for him.

When the Terra Nova environmental assessment panel asked for further clarification from the proponent Petro-Canada on what was going to be involved in the assessment employment and training aspect, Terra Nova sent back three typed pages, that was their response to an assessment panel set up by the provincial government. In my profession opinion, it was nothing short of a slap in the face to the people of this Province. Here is what they said: It is anticipated, I say to the minister, and this came from Petro-Canada: It is anticipated that a significant pool of skilled workers with offshore drilling experience is available in other maritime regions - that does not mean just Canada, it means other maritime regions throughout the world - to meet the requirements of Terra Nova drilling operations.

There were skilled workers in the Province but enough, they said, in other maritime regions throughout the world to meet their skill qualifications. They had no intention of providing training where skill shortages exist and we still have time to do it, but I do not blame Petro Canada. I blame government because government has let they away with it. There is a significant number of positions right now of people who are coming into this Province, you look at the industrial electricians and the commissioning work on Hibernia site where decisions - and I asked questions in this House of the minister responsible for the Canadian Offshore Petroleum Board - representations were made to Cabinet, representations were made to the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet; representations were made to the former Minister of Energy; representations were made to the Premier by the stakeholders who felt that their membership were not getting equal treatment, were being denied very, very high-paying, very technical jobs that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were not only trained to do, but had years and years of experience behind them that clearly showed they could do it, but government sat on their backsides and sat on their hands and did nothing about it. That is wrong, and the case is clearly demonstrated.

The Canadian Offshore Petroleum Board has been ineffective in dealing with those situations. The benefit section with respect to the Atlantic Accord needs to be strengthened; it needs to be strengthened for each and every one of us so that at the end of the day, in an offshore oil and gas industry, which is just emerging in this Province, is just beginning, the Hibernia project was just a very, very small beginning, an important first step but it is just a small beginning and people should wrap their minds around that.

Let us talk about some of the other recommendations that government should seriously consider. Any shortfalls in local personnel availability be identified immediately and corrective and foresightful training be instituted forthwith to correct such deficiencies and prepare for the long-term for any and all required positions. What is wrong with that recommendation that the Minister of Education will not follow? So that where skills are identified and where we are deficient in this Province right now, that the people of the Province do not have those skills, do not have that technology, that we identify it and correct it; have people trained, send them where they have to be sent to get the relevant experience so that we not only can take advantage of employment opportunities on the one hand, as important as they are, but we may be able to transfer technology to people and companies, and groups in this Province that we can then turn and sell around the world. What is wrong with that? That is called `looking beyond the tip of your nose'; it is called economic development for an industry that is emerging in this Province.

Let us talk about another recommendation that we should consider. That a binding frame-work agreement on employment and training be prepared before the commencement of and for the duration of this project. The agreement would be regularly updated under the auspices of a joint - and I stress joint - owners, contractors, labour and government committee. In other words, all the stakeholders, continually assessing the opportunities that are there, ensuring that we are on the leading edge to take advantage of the opportunities that would present themselves and for most people who do not realize, the oil and gas industry is being technically advanced each and every year in terms of oil extraction. Five ten years ago we thought that the Hibernia site would produce oil for approximately fifteen years. Much of the reports nationally from the business section in the Globe And Mail and other sections across other business sorts of groups felt that it was not a worthwhile project, but they do today. Not only because it is completed but a lot of it has to do with the emergence of new technology, that because of that technology, they now believe the Hibernia Field itself will pump for twenty five years, not fifteen, as a result of new technology. What should we do to take advantage of it, so that we keep ourselves up to speed, that we aren't out of the loop in an industry that is developing for us? What would be one of the things we should continue to do, should do, for the benefit of the people of the Province, so that at the end of the day employment opportunities are created and revenue is generated for the benefit of us all?

Here is a recommendation on research and development presented to the environmental assessment panel: The uncertainties of the competitive regimes which the proponent has brought to our shore require public debate, possibly an industrial commission and dialogue, culminating in a long-ranging provincial offshore oil and gas industry plan, regularly reviewed and updated. Allowances have to be made for a permanent secretariat for such a plan if an avalanche of oil and gas development proceeds. And we expect it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to speak to the motion, but I do intend to move a motion that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

Motion carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few words in this debate. I didn't intend to speak tonight. I thought I would come and relax. But this afternoon I was inspired. My colleague the Member for Topsail made one of the finest speeches I've heard in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: He inspired me to the extent that I've just got to get up and say a few words. What he pointed out was the amount of negativity which permeates Newfoundland and Labrador today, but it is personified in this Opposition. It is against everything under the sun, Mr. Chairman. I've never heard the like in my life. Don't come to Newfoundland, there won't be anywhere to stay. You aren't going to get the transshipment centre. You aren't going to get the smelter. You aren't going to do this and you aren't going to do that. It would get on your nerves.

As all of my colleagues know, there was a time in my life when I was a clergyman.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes sir, and you were a good one too.

MR. DECKER: They tell me I was a good one, but let me tell you the temptation of a clergyman. A major part of a clergyman's job is preaching, and the easiest sermon to preach, Mr. Chairman, is the damnation, hellfire and brimstone. Tell everybody they are going to hell, tell everybody they are sinners, tell everybody they are useless. Cut them down. You don't have to do any research, you don't have to think. All you have to get up is tell people how bad they are. It is so easy to do that. As I matured and became more familiar with what the church is all about, I found out that really you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: You left the clergy.

MR. DECKER: - the essence of preaching is to give people hope, give people something positive, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: If you want to see the personification of that, look at this side of the House. People who are upbeat, people who look forward to the bright times. You look at the Opposition. In the last election, Mr. Chairman, we talked about a better tomorrow and we stand by that.

There are some difficulties we have to overcome first. For example, we have a failure in our fishery, the cod fishery and the groundfishery. We have to deal with that. It is never going to come back the way it used to be. Look at the groundfish industry. The groundfish industry lent itself to about 400 small communities. One hundred and fifty people, 300 people, 200 people. Many of them were started before we had engines in our boats. You would establish your community as near to the fishing grounds as possible. You could row out and you could drop your cod trap, or you could put your trawl or whatever you want, and you catch your fish.

MR. EFFORD: Whatever type of gear.

MR. DECKER: Now, that has changed. That kind of an industry is practically gone the way it use to be, yet we have about 25,000 people who depended on that way of life, we have to replace it. What other industry can we think about -

AN HON. MEMBER: Neither one.

MR. DECKER: - that would put 400 plants all over the coast line of Newfoundland and Labrador? I do not think Mr. Chairman, there is any such industry. Now, we recognized that and what did we do? We did not give up and say: there is nothing you can do, she's gone boy, the arse is out of her, the last person out turns off the lights, all the old clichés you hear, we did not say that, no.

What this government did, we put in place a plan. We said lets face the facts. If you live in Noddy Bay up in my district, it is quite possible that because the fishery, as you knew it is gone, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to live and work in Noddy Bay as your ancestors did for 150 years. I can pick dozens of similar communities around the Province.

But what we did, we divided the Province into about nineteen or twenty regions, different zones, and we said to the people who live in the Straits of Belle Isle, The Straits & White Bay North District, we said look, there is no better place in the world to live then Noddy Bay, you have your gardens, you have your family, you have your big spread of land, you have your wharf, you have your boat, you do not have to leave Noddy Bay, but we will try to make sure that somewhere in this zone, there is an industry that you can commute to, so you have the best of both worlds. You commute maybe to St. Anthony, maybe to Flowers Cove, maybe to Anchor Point, but the role of government is to make sure that we have a good paved road so that the people who live in Noddy Bay and Cooks Harbour and Goose Cove have a network so that they can live where they always lived and where they want to live, where the quality of life is second to none on the planet, but commute to their work.

Now, we did not stop at that, Mr. Chairman, we did not stop by having the concept, we began to do something about it. The Premier appointed a Minister of Fisheries, a close personal friend, colleague that I am proud to say, is a colleague and a friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: A man who is doing more for the fishery in this Province then has been done in 400 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: He understands the concept of the different zones.

I will just take an example in my own riding, I said one of the best places to live is Noddy Bay, Cooks Harbour, Goose Cove, these small places, what does my colleague do? Cooperates with the member, cooperates with the zone and makes available to St. Anthony a shrimp license, Mr. Chairman. The federal government gives the harvesting license, my colleague, my friend, the Minister of Fisheries, is going to make available a processing license for shrimp.

Before the collapse of the ground fishery there were about 700 people who worked at the fish plant in St. Anthony, for the last two or three years there has been hardly anybody working there, but because of what my colleague and friend has done, we are going to see probably 150 people or 200 people working in the shrimp fishery.

But did he stop there?

MR. TULK: No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just getting started.

MR. DECKER: No, he did not stop there.

Every year there are thousands of tonnes of crab caught off St. Anthony, boats go out off St. Anthony, bring it in, land it at one of the wharfs in St. Anthony, truck it all the way down the Northern Peninsula to other parts of the Province. Now, there are two problems there, one problem is the quality of the crab. Truck crab in the middle of July from St. Anthony to Port de Grave and you do not a very have a very good product by the time it reaches the factory. That is one problem, but the other problem, Mr. Chairman, for every tonne of crab, you are trucking jobs out of St. Anthony.

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot be talking about Port de Grave.

MR. DECKER: My colleague, even though he is from Port de Grave and recognizes that some of the crab caught off St. Anthony is trucked to Port de Grave, but was he taken with petty loyalties to the community that he lives in.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. TULK: No, not likely.

MR. DECKER: Far from him, he in not concerned about politics, colour, race, he is a man who does what is right.

MR. TULK: Right on.

MR. DECKER: He knows nothing about being unfair, so what did he do? He made available to St. Anthony, a crab license.

MR. TULK: He got it done. John you are blushing.

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Chairman, we are going to replace these 700 jobs. When the Opposition goes around saying, she's gone boy, she's gone, what do we do? In St. Anthony, I am bragging about ny own district, today there are 106 people working in St. Anthony in the fish plant. Guess what they are doing?

MR. TULK: I don't know.

MR. DECKER: Tell them Minister of Fisheries.

MR. EFFORD: Calamary.

MR. TULK: Oh, calamary, excellent stuff.

MR. DECKER: Calamary, I didn't hear of it. I didn't know what it was. So I said to the fellow who started it up, what is calamary? He said squid. Nobody eats squid but everybody loves calamary.

Now there is hope for St. Anthony. That fish plant will work again. Seven hundred people will work again in that fish plant, Mr. Chairman, but if you live in Noddy Bay you might have to drive to St. Anthony to work. If you lived outside of Toronto you could be driving for two hours in traffic to work. From Noddy Bay to St. Anthony is about 40 minutes - 30 minutes with these nice roads that my colleague, the same minister, when he was Minister of Transportation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - I invited him up to my district and I took him out to Goose Cove. He met with the mayor and we looked at the gravel road and Efford said, `Nobody in Newfoundland should drive over a road like that, Mr. Decker, what have you been doing?' What happened this year when the announcement was made? $900,000 to pave the road from Goose Cove. The hon. minister had it in place before he left.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) that he was a Liberal.

MR. DECKER: Then, Mr. Chairman, we went to Main Brook. In the Roads for Rails Agreement there was supposed to be a road from St. Anthony Airport to Main Brook over to Roddickton to create a loop. Now, Mr. Chairman, it was nineteenth on the list. The previous members stuck it on the end of the list. They figured with the previous bill, that government, when they signed the Roads for Rails. My colleague said: this is unfair and I am not an unfair man. I want to see things done right and proper and that road should be done. He looked at the mayor of Main Brook and he said: brother, if I can do it you will have that road, and true to his word the road is going to be paved this summer. So you see, Mr. Chairman, I could go around and talk about what used to be and how negative everything is but, Mr. Chairman, I am telling you we look to the positive.

Now I am going to leave my own district and I am going to just look at some of the other positive things that are happening in Newfoundland. The Member for Bay d'Espoir - one of the best little industries in this Province today is the steelhead trout. God only knows how many people can be employed there. If that steelhead trout is accepted into the American market the way it has been for the few thousand tons that have been sold, you will never produce enough. You will never produce enough. We can replace about one-third of the unemployed fishermen with the aquaculture that is happening in Bay d'Espoir alone. What is New Brunswick doing -a billion dollar business?

MR. G. REID: Yes, it can be nines time the size of New Brunswick.

MR. DECKER: Hear what my colleague is telling me, my colleague from Twillingate? The aquaculture industry in New Brunswick is a billion dollar industry. Bay d'Espoir is how many times bigger?

MR. G. REID: Nine times they have the potential to be.

MR. DECKER: Nine times bigger.

MR. EFFORD: Have the potential.

MR. DECKER: That is a $10 billion industry and they are going around saying: the last man out turn off the lights. She can't be done boy, the arse is out of her boy.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time unfortunately is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: I thought the member should have led us on a little bit more rhetoric. I would gladly give the member another opportunity because we on this side were almost persuaded now to believe that minister over there. I mean the same kind of preaching that you get in the church - he hasn't changed from one ministry to the other. He just took his collar and turned it around. So it is the same kind of sermon that he used to preach years ago. We are over here waiting to be converted but we must be sitting in the sinners seats because we on this side have not been moved to believe what the good minister has been saying. So his words here mean nothing.

Mr. Chairman, just let me read to you what this government said. They were talking about consultations and they said, relative to public service workers: ...make a valuable contribution to the quality of life in our Province.

Here is what they said about public service workers. They said: The time has come for new partnerships with those who serve the public, to draw on their talents and their ideas to maintain and improve service delivery. Then they said: In making reform to public services, notably in education and health, the new Liberal government will fully involve those who provide these vital public services in a process of dialogue and partnership.

Mr. Chairman, let me quote for you from a series of letters which were written to the hon. the Premier, all of them from Grand Falls - Windsor, a few days ago. These are people who work at the Memorial United Church group home in Grand Falls. On April 4, of course, we know the famous edict that came out and said: We are going to be cancelling all of those group homes. We did not talk to you about it before, but please be advised... - and the letter said as of September 31. That is what the letter said, September 31.

Obviously, we know what kind of research went into that because the letter said September 31. Of course, we know that September 31 will never come. So what we have in this particular memorandum - these were letters to the Premier. What these people say is that they want the Premier to live up to the commitment in the Red Book, where the Premier said: We are going to be concerned about the people who work for the public service, and we are going to engage them in a dialogue, it says here. When we make changes, there will be lots of consultation that will go on.

Let us read from what some of those people said. These letters were sent to the Minister of Education, to the MHAs for the area, to the MP, to the Leader of the Opposition, to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, to the former Minister of Human Resources and Employment, to myself, to Robinson-Blackmore. They are all public documents.

Mr. Chairman, what we have here is people who are asking: `Why were we not consulted?' These people write because they have two concerns. One is because of their employment, and the other concern is because of the people who live in these particular homes. So when they wrote - all of the people who work there - they tell the story of having decisions dictated down to them. It was not part of the consultation process when the Minister of Finance went around and said, `We want you to tell us what is good', and so on and so forth. They were not advised at that point in time. It is not part of the Red Book. Cancelling the group home initiatives in the Province is not in this Red Book.

The trouble we have with the Red Book is that it does not say what it is that you are going to do. It is not very specific. It is full of generalities, but it does make several commitments, and one of the commitments is, `We will consult.'

Mr. Chairman, let us listen to some of the comments that have been written here. This letter is written by Carolyn Wyatt, who works in that group home out there. She says: While I am concerned about being forced out of a job that I truly love, this is not my first priority. I am confident that I will find other employment if I have to leave my home, but if I leave my home that will be my decision, unlike the poor people who live at the group home. You and your government have made a decision which will radically change the lives of these people forever.

Mr. Chairman, what Carolyn Wyatt is saying in her letter written to the Premier is that this decision to change the group home at Grand Falls is a bad decision. She is saying that this will result in these people being negatively impacted upon. I will quote from the letter again: Will they be bounced from placement to placement? Do you care? I care, and these people are like family to me.

Mr. Chairman, these are people who are asking: Where is the consultation? Where were we involved? Did we have an opportunity for any input? The answers are no, no, no. They were not asked for their input by the Department of Human Resources and Employment, they were not asked for their input by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board when he went around with his slides and charts and all the facts and figures. They were not asked then for their input. No.

In fact, the other day in the House, I asked the minister if she would go to Grand Falls and meet with these people out there. In fact, I am going out to Grand Falls to meet with these people. I have already talked to them. Tomorrow morning, I am having a session with a group home here in St. John's, because the government is not listening to the people who work in the group homes. In fact, in the next several days, I will be having several meetings with the people who work in the group homes. I want to find out exactly what the true story is.

If we are going to be sacrificing the people who are most at risk in our society, these people who cannot care for themselves, for the sake of budgetary restraint, I have some concerns with that. Therefore, what I hear here is that the government is quite prepared to make those decisions without any consultation, in spite of what the Red Book says. The Red Book says: We will consult.

Let me go to another letter that was written here. This one is a letter that is written by Charlene Budgell from Grand Falls - Windsor, and she says, writing to the Premier: I challenge you, as well as the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, to meet our residents and work one eight-hour shift with them before you decide to move them to another living arrangement. Here is a challenge by a worker in Grand Falls - Windsor asking: Would you please, Mr. Premier - you and your Minister of Human Resources and Employment, would you come out to Grand Falls, would you work one eight-hour shift and see what really happens here, see what kind of facility we are operating? Then you will have some basic information in which you would be able to make some evidence-based decision.

The Minister of Health yesterday in the House, the former Minister of Human Resources, said she is into evidence-based decision-making. Well, here is some evidence. This lady here, she is a counsellor there. To continue, she talks about the transfer to a foster home type of environment and the impact it will have on these individual people.

Going on to a letter from Josephine Randell who has been a counsellor there for ten years. She says she was not consulted. She says: I was shocked and angry - shocked because, she says: I am a single mother with two children and looking forward to helping them with their future, but now it is unemployment, and one year later I will be on welfare myself. I am angry because decisions have been made that affect the lives of four individuals who cannot speak for themselves. Tomorrow this could be a child of yours or a child of mine. What Josephine Randall is asking is: Where is the commitment for consultation on changing the group homes? Again, she challenges the minister and the Premier to come to Grand Falls - Windsor and to see for themselves what really is the situation out in that particular group home.

Then, we have a letter here from Denise Murray. Denise Murray, again, is a worker out there. She says: What a rotten trick, talking about the unemployment notice they got on April 5.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: She says: What a rotten trick to play on some twenty to twenty-five people who cannot fight back.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. H. HODDER: Do I have leave to finish up the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, what we are saying here is that this particular lady, Denise Murray from Grand Falls - Windsor, is talking about the people who are working in the home and the people who are residents there. She said: What a rotten trick to play on them. Most of them are non-verbal and some do not have parents to be advocates for them at all. She said: We have to be their advocates. We can fight for them. But now, she says, you will not let me do that, Mr. Premier, therefore, I am not only going to be out of a job, but I am going to lose my opportunity to be an advocate for people who cannot advocate for themselves.

Mr. Chairman, again in the last paragraph this lady, Denise Murray, has written to the Premier: You are invited to visit these people at their home at 16 Knight Street, Grand Falls - Windsor. She gives the telephone number and says: Please, come out here at your earliest convenience, and we hope it will not be too late.

Then we have a letter from Christina Osmond.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: This letter here is written by Christina Osmond and she quotes Martin Luther King Junior where he says: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter. Of course, what she is saying is that she cannot be silent about this particular issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would say here, on behalf of the people who live in group homes in this Province, on behalf of the 150 people who are going to be laid off, that we should be a lot more attentive. These are the people who matter. We should be taking up their cause, and instead of just making decisions without consultation, as was promised in the Red Book - in this particular case, there has been no consultation.

I have a letter here as well from Brenda Ireland. She says: As I was thinking of my future and what it holds for me and my young family, a wave of fear swept over me, fear not for myself but for the four adults we have living in the home. What are they going to do? Where are they going to live? What is going to become of their quality of life? Will it be the same? Will it be different? They are being forced to leave their home, a home which is the only stability they have in their lives.

Mr. Chairman, we are making decisions on group homes and, as I say to my colleague over there who is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I know he is sensitive to this particular issue - I do believe we are making rash decisions, decisions that we should probably place on hold for a while until we have full consultation and talk with the people there.

I had a call this morning from the sister of somebody in one of those homes here in St. John's, crying on the phone, saying: What will happen to my sister who came out of the Waterford Hospital and now is being told that she is going to be moved out of her present accommodations into a foster home type of environment? This is a wrong decision. It should be reviewed. It was made in haste and it is not in the best interests of the people who are there.

I could read the rest of the letters here. These are all letters from one group home. As I said to the government a few minutes ago, I have had calls from all over the Province. I have made a commitment that I will go to Grand Falls - Windsor and visit the home out there. I will not do it before the House closes, but I will go out there to visit. I will also be visiting the homes in St. John's. In fact, I have two that I will visit later on this week.

There is a real concern there. The concern is that the right decision is not being made for those people. Until we do a thorough analysis, talk to the psychologists involved, talk to the people who have health care needs at heart and are not focused totally on budgetary dollars - we need to do all that before we make the decisions that we are contemplating.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: It has been suggested by hon. members to my right that the clock, by all means, would continue to 8:50 p.m., but that the members, if they so desire, could break from the Chamber for that fifteen minutes; but the clock would continue. It has been a suggestion from members to my right. The clock will not stop, it will continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: To my right.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, would they consider that it not stop until ten o'clock, let the clock continue on and take the break at ten o'clock.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Do you want a coffee break and we will let the clock run for twenty minutes? Sure. I feel that the hon. gentlemen knew how to get to their feet and suggest that. Didn't they? I'm sure they did. Do you want to go for twenty minutes?

MR. H. HODDER: We will continue on with the debate, and we can have a break probably after 9:00 p.m. or so. We have only been here for an hour and a half since we had supper.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me say to the hon. Opposition House Leader that if he wants to assert his authority and stay here for twenty-four more minutes and then take a break, we have no problem with that either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair regrets it was willing to listen to members of the House who were suggesting we would take a break. The Chair will not be caught in such a manner in the future.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying before the whining from the other side of the House interrupted me, I don't know how they can keep this negative outlook on life when you look at all the positive things that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I don't know how they can do it. But I'm beginning to suspect that maybe I do know what is keeping them negative.

They keep phoning up - how about your district, colleagues? There must be some districts that someone will say: I had a call from Harvey Hodder today. Who is he? What is he doing? He was trying to tell me how bad the education system is. He was telling me how bad it is that you are closing up group homes, or how bad it is that you are doing this or that. They have to try to generate this negativity, they have to try to make it work.

It reminds me of the story about the old guy up in White Bay who had a little business. He was doing quite well. Up in the northern part, on my part of White Bay. He had an excellent business, it was a prosperous business. He was expanding, he was building on pieces, and his sales were excellent. But his son had been living up in Toronto, and his son came home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is home?

MR. DECKER: Up in White Bay. I won't say the specific community. He said to his father: I got laid off, we are into a recession. The old man said: My business is very good. But he said: It isn't, it isn't supposed to be good. Don't you realize Canada is in a recession? And you know, the poor old fellow stopped expanding, didn't bring in enough stock for the winter, and ended up losing an awful lot of business. That son could just as well have been the Opposition House Leader. Could just as easily have been. Because I don't know where he gets all the bad news, where he gets all the negative stuff that he keeps bringing to the floor of this House.

He certainly does not get it in Mount Pearl, in part of his district. Maybe the hon. member can help me, because I'm not sure what the name of the convention was. A couple of weeks ago there was an event in the Glacier out in Mount Pearl. It was the sports - Sandra, you remember, what was that sports conference they had in Mount Pearl at the Glacier? About two weeks ago when they had people from all over Newfoundland and Labrador who were engaged in -

MS KELLY: The Outdoor Adventure Show.

MR. DECKER: The Outdoor Adventure Show, Mr. Chairman, in the Mount Pearl Glacier. I attended it. You talk about a positive, upbeat group of people. I went and looked at all the displays. I looked at what is happening to adventure tourism in this Province. There was a group of people there from Botwood, from Grand Falls, from Bishop's Falls. Where else were they from? All around Central Newfoundland. They had come in together to advertise to the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador just what is happening out in Central Newfoundland.

I went up to one of the displays and there was a beautiful cedar canoe, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: Where was this?

MR. DECKER: Out at Outdoor Adventure Show at the Glacier. A beautiful cedar canoe, and behind it there was a young man probably in his early twenties. He had photographs of people who were showing off the fish they had caught, and there were pictures there of his trips up and down the Gander River and the various rivers in Central Newfoundland. I was amazed at this cedar canoe. I think it was probably built out in British Columbia or somewhere in Ontario.

So, I said to the young man, `Who built the canoe?' `Oh,' he said, `I did.' I said, `You built that?' `Yes,' he said, `I built that over the winter. I build one every year. As a matter of fact I intend to start my own business and start selling them.' He was from somewhere in Central Newfoundland. I believe it was either Bishop's Falls or Grand Falls or Botwood. They were here for the show.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. DECKER: Oh, I am not sure. He gave me his business card, I believe, at lunch. I said, `Well, how is business?' `Oh,' he said, `we are busy all the time. Now, it is just starting, the industry is in infancy and we are just getting it up and running.' He wasn't going around saying: Shut off the lights, the last man out. He wasn't whining like the Opposition is doing. No whining from him. He recognized that there is a good future in adventure tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman, and he was there on the ground floor. That took place at the Mount Pearl Glacier right in the district of this member who is constantly in here giving us a lot of negative tripe, whining over everything good and positive that he sees.

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to correct the hon. Minister of Justice. It shows how little he knows about it. The Mount Pearl Glacier is not in Waterford Valley, it is in the district of Mount Pearl which is represented by the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. DECKER: I am enlightened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

As with the correction in our time earlier, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am now enlightened.

Mr. Chairman, this young man saw the potential and he is starting to get involved in tourism.

Now, I am keenly interested in adventure tourism. Last winter, I took two excellent snowmobile rides. Last year or the year before I was attending a function, a fundraiser for the Liberal Party. People were there paying seventy-five, eighty bucks just to come in and give money to the party. There is so much faith and hope and confidence in the Liberal Party, that you cannot even invite people to the house anymore; they start giving donations to the party.

Anyway, this man was all tanned up, his face was all tanned. I said, `You back from Florida?' `No,' he said, `I am not back from Florida. I just did a snowmobile run. I said, `A snowmobile run! Where were you?' `Quebec.' A successful Newfoundlander, in business, went up to Quebec and paid $3,000 or $4,000 for a week of snowmobiling. I said, `Is that possible?' He said, `It is foolish, isn't it.' When you think that we have the best snow, probably in the world, certainly in North America, and he had to go to Quebec to take part in a snowmobile ride.

Mr. Chairman, last winter I got a phone call from someone up in St. Anthony telling me that there would be a Grenfell ride from St. Anthony to Main Brook. I was invited to go on the ride. So, Mr. Chairman, I went up, and they provided me with a lovely snowmobile. Actually it was an Arctic Cat provided by the group that put the ride in place. We drove from St. Anthony into Main Brook, over the White Hills.

MR. TULK: It is a nice run.

MR. DECKER: A tremendous run, Mr. Chairman; the very hills that Sir Wilfred Grenfell used to travel over, the very hills where you put patients - from Englee or Roddickton or Main Brook or Flower's Cove - in a coach box, take them on a dog team, and drive them up to the hospital in St. Anthony. Then we went down to a little cove called Lock's Cove. Now, for those of you who are history buffs, you will recall that it was in Lock's Cove that the people saw Sir Wilfred when he was adrift on the ice pan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. DECKER: Yes. Sir Wilfred, as you know, tried to cross the ice. The bay had been full, the wind changed and drifted out, and he ended up on the ice pan. It was in Lock's Cove that the men launched a boat and rode out to the ice pan and brought Sir Wilfred Grenfell back in.

Now, on that snowmobile run we stopped in Lock's Cove. There were probably 150 people there in Lock's Cove, and Dr. Peter Roberts, who used to be the director -

AN HON. MEMBER: Another good Tory.

MR. DECKER: Look, I never consider a man's politics or a man's religion. It doesn't mean a thing to me, the same as John Efford in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make to you is that when we did that run from St. Anthony into Main Brook, when we arrived in Main Brook about 1:00 p.m., there were probably 500 or 600 snowmobiles parked in front of the school.

MR. TULK: That's the trip you were supposed to take me on.

MR. DECKER: I will come to that.

There were about 500 or 600 snowmobiles, plus the ones that we were on. Now, can you imagine the potential of the snowmobiling industry on the Northern Peninsula? There were different restaurants there. The club must have taken in a fortune that day. There were races on the harbour, and this upbeat feeling. You know, everybody in that town that day had the sense that they were on the brink of a new industry. You could feel it, something like Cabot must have felt when he landed in Newfoundland, or Columbus when he landed in the states, or when Apollo or whatever it was landed on the moon. It is right on the verge of a new industry and my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is always telling us what a future there is in Adventure Tourism.

You, Mr. Chairman, I remember, Sir, when you were Minister of Tourism, the confidence that you had in Adventure Tourism, and told us what a tremendous potential is there. I had hardly finished that trip when I got another call from the Viking Trail Association, telling me that they were doing a snowmobile run. I am getting to be a professional snowmobiler. My name is going far and wide throughout this Province, and hopefully it will soon hit the mainland.

MR. TULK: Your name?

MR. DECKER: As a snowmobiler.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Here we are; it has already gone to Fogo.

MR. TULK: No, no, I am talking about a colleague of ours in Toronto who called and said: Do you know that Chris Decker is one of those top snowmobilers (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Here we are, the word is spreading.

Anyway, I was invited to the Viking 1000, so I went out to Deer Lake and here they were, twenty-five snowmobiles, half a dozen people down from the mainland, and they were the ones who were going to take part in the Viking 1000 race. The race was cancelled, but they had made their deposit so the Viking Trail Association said: Come on, we will do the ride anyway.

I was a little bit uneasy, as my colleague will know, because I had an old Arctic Cat, a 1985 model, and she looked pretty scruffy. The cab was squat and the headlight was out, and all of that sort of thing; and some of those mainlanders, holy goodness, what machines they had! One guy had one there that cost $18,000.

MR. TULK: What was the name of that?

MR. DECKER: It was some sort of top-of-the-line Yamaha. It purred when you went alongside it, and it looked vicious, such a mean line, a little old low windshield on it, and I going up, putt, putt, putt, putt in my old 1985 Arctic Cat.

Anyway, when we sat around and watched -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: - those people down from the Mainland, the other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians up there, I am not sure if there was a person from Labrador or not to tell you the truth, but anyway there were people of this Province and again we got the same feeling that we are right on the brink of a new industry.

I remember Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up and when I worked up in Roddickton, I remember, you would get up in the morning and look out and it would be snowing and you would say, `oh my goodness, I have to shovel it, oh my goodness, I have to plough the road' and you were continually fighting snow. Going around whining, almost like my friends on the other side are whining all the time, you would be whining because it was snowing or whining because you had to put on warm clothes or whining because you had to get the plough out and plough the roads, but do you know what is happening? What is happening today is the attitudes are changing. When people look out the window now and see a batch of snow, they say, praise the lord another batch of snow, we are going to get the snowmobiles in, Mr. Chairman.

We left Deer Lake, our first night was in Cow Head and the people running the Shallow Bay Motel, they treated us like royalty, they took special care to make sure that the Mainland tourists got top treatment, treated like kings. They are going to be back to Cow Head because they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Exactly. The second night we went from Cow Head and do you know where we spent it? Twenty-four miles in from Hawkes Bay out in the woods all night, we missed the trail and we spent - no problem, nobody panicked, there were tents, there were sleeping bags, there was food, we spent the night out in the woods and we all brag about it. We are all bragging about the wonderful night we had out in the woods.

The third night, Mr. Chairman, was in Port au Choix and again I have to give all the credit to Mrs. Spence, the women who owns the motel there. She did everything in her power to make sure that the Mainlanders especially got top treatment because she knows -

MR. TULK: They will be back.

MR. DECKER: - they will be back because she knows that she is on the brink of a brand new industry. She is not going around whining, she is not going to give up because she has to change and do more winter tourism in addition to her summer tourism. She is not whining, she is not going around being negative. The people on Cow Head are not going around being negative, because they know we are on the brink of a new industry, Mr. Chairman.

Now, that is the kinds of people that this Province is made up of. Like any group of people, you get the odd person who wants to whine and when that whining is encouraged by opposition who phones up and says: Do you know you are going to loose your school? Do you know you are not going to have as many teachers as you had last year? Do you know that because you only have fifteen children left, you are not to get as many teachers in your school as you when you had 150 children? You should be complaining about that. Give me a petition, if you can't do it I will write it out for you, you sign it take it around, but the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not deceived because they know that if any industry were to collapse in Newfoundland today, tomorrow we would start on the road of building a new industry because we are a people who can adapt. We have been in this place for 500 years, we are celebrating it this year, and you do not stay in Newfoundland and Labrador 500 years unless you can adapt. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, except for the few whiners who are encouraged by the Opposition, who personify whining, are unlike us who personify that which is positive, that which looks to a bright future, Mr, Chairman. What we personify is a group of people who recognize a problem when it is there and then we get out and fix it and that is exactly what is happening to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman, today.

MR. TULK: And that is what being Liberal means.

MR. DECKER: That is what is means to be a Liberal, big L Liberal, Mr. Chairman, that is what it means to be a big L Liberal today, recognize the problem, get out and deal with it and fix it, that is exactly what is going on in this Province today. We are not going to be side tracked by whiners, we are not going to be side tracked by people who would want to tell you: she's gone boy, she's gone and there is no future for Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to build on the basis of positivism. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is going to join this race with us, Mr. Chairman, because we know that as long as grass grows and water runs and the sun shines there will be a Newfoundland. There will be employment in this Province and we are not waiting for someone else to come in and do it for us. We are going to do it ourselves, Mr. Chairman, because that is the very essence and that is the very nature of people right from Cape Chidley right on down to Port aux Basques, Cape Ray and Cape Race and wherever else. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am certainly glad to get up and make a few comments before we have a short recess but leading up to that time we have a couple of minutes.

The first thing I have to ask, the Minister of Justice, what happened to his corn flakes this morning? That is twice or maybe even three times that he has been up so far now this evening. I am just wondering what is inspiring the Minister of Justice to jump all of a sudden when he has not been saying anything for two or three months or longer in this House of Assembly then all of a sudden he gets turned on and decides to get up and blurb on for half-an-hour tonight or today so far for about half-an-hour but, Mr. Chairman, that is okay. I am glad to see the minister get up and get rejuvenated and revived and so on. It is a funny thing, Mr. Chairman, but the minister has been up now several times and he continues to talk about negativism, gloom and everything else and how we should not talk about it but that is all he has talked about since we started talking. Everything we have discussed here so far in this House over the last couple of days, how he says we should not have a shroud of dark cloud over us. The minister gets up, we give him leave and he goes on and on and all he talked about was negatives. So, Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering what happened to the minister's corn flakes this morning when he got out of bed and where this all started. I will, Mr. Chairman, try to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will again, as I did several times yesterday and today, Mr. Chairman, just very quickly divert my attention away from the negativism and talk about some positive things. The Ming's Bight Road will be paved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well there you go, now we delivered it.

Mr. Chairman, actually as a matter of fact I will mention the conversation I just had with the Member for Labrador. We continuously - we, I mean all politicians, both sides - get up and they keep talking about spending and every election - it is the same thing now with the federal election. The Liberals are doing it, the Tories are doing it, the NDP are doing it, they are all doing it. They all give us a history of the debt. Everybody tells us about the debt and how bad it is and so on. So, Mr. Chairman, there is nobody in this Province or in this country who doesn't know about the debt and how bad it is. Mr. Chairman, nobody argues that point about how bad the debt is and who mean it - we can sit here and argue for years and years I guess over the years about the different government's and how they put us in this position. There is no way a Tory can say to a Liberal or a Liberal can say to a Tory that it was only one party. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, it is all parties since the country began and since the Province came into Confederation. So let's get off that spin for a little while. The debt has come from a continuation of government after government and talked about.

What the difference has to be, Mr. Chairman, and what the problem is today in Newfoundland and Labrador is the priority in spending. It has nothing to do with the history of the debt. We are all tired of talking about the history of the debt and how it came about. Who blames who and name a few mistakes and then the Tories will name a few mistakes. We can go back and forth like a ping-pong game doing that but, Mr. Chairman, what it is going to take to make a difference in this Province, especially at this stage now, what is going to make the difference is a government who finally puts a priority straight. Although we are going to take a recess -do you want me to do it now?

MR. TULK: Do what?

MR. SHELLEY: Take that recess or whatever?

MR. H. HODDER: Don't give in to him (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: On a point of order, I say to the hon. gentleman that if his House Leader is prepared to let him go and let the parliamentary clock keep running for twenty minutes now he can do so but I don't want to upset the hon. gentleman over there. I don't want to make him feel that he has no authority in this place. I don't want to make him feel he can't handle the place. If he says we go for twenty minutes and keep the parliamentary clock running, now or fifteen minutes from now, Mr. Chairman, I will abide by the school principal.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) as long as I know that after a twenty minute recess here that I will be the speaker still.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have another ten if you wish.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I will go along with that. I'm being cooperative here tonight. We have had a lot of cooperation here tonight. We will have a recess and we will continue when I come back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

It is agreed by both the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader, and other members, that the clock will continue and that the Chair will reconvene at 9:20 p.m.

 

Recess

 

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to rise for a few moments to address an issue that has been raised at various times by members of the House, particularly by my colleague to my right for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Earlier today we had a petition in the House on child poverty. I wanted to have a few brief comments on that, and then we could probably have some others of my caucus engage in the debate as well.

We know from the petitions that have been presented and the research that has been done by the Department of Education, we know from the research done by the Department of Health, we know from the people involved in the school system, the issue is real. I want to acknowledge that I do believe some members of the government are becoming a little more sensitive to this particular issue. We know the federal government made the decision a few weeks ago in its Budget to put what looked like a substantial sum of money into the war against child poverty, and during the election campaign it has put in additional funds again.

Unfortunately, a lot of that money is not going to go directly to combat child poverty, and most of it is not going to be coming in until 1998. We have to do something between now and then. We can't have the blight of poverty affecting our school system the way it is without doing something constructive about it. I wanted to draw attention again to hon. members that when we are making our decisions here we have to be very careful that we don't negatively do things that will impact in a very adverse way against the youngest people in our society, namely our children.

We know from the research that has been done that 25 per cent of the school population is at risk. Without appropriate interventions we certainly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: He is always very quiet. He has a full contingency in the gallery up there right now and now he is becoming quite the changed person. The Member for Kilbride wants me to welcome his constituents to the gallery. We know the Member for Kilbride is always very attentive to his constituents. I know that I would be totally negligent if I didn't, in the middle of talking about childhood poverty, recognize the special attention that is given.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Oh yes, well, I mean, he is a big supporter of positive measures when the government makes positive measures. However, it hasn't made a great many positive measures lately so

there are not a great many signs out there saying thank you.

Mr. Chairman, on the issue of child poverty: We want to return to that, because all of the research indicates what a dramatic impact child poverty is having on children. For example, in the background paper for the report of the Social Policy Advisory Committee, on page 6, it says that research indicates that children who grow up in poor families show almost three and a half times the number of conduct disorders as compared to those children who do not have to cope with child poverty on a daily basis.

MR. EFFORD: I was asleep.

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, that is good. You have been asleep for a long time. Maybe you believe in the resurrection as well. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the hon. member, when we talk about child poverty and how he could do something about it, no wonder he is bored. His nap time is over now. Wake up! If you would wake up maybe you wouldn't be so disinterested in child poverty.

Mr. Chairman, we want to say here that when we talk about child poverty, we know that children who are poor have twice the rate of chronic illness as compared to children who are not growing up in poor families. They also have a higher incidence of hyperactivity and other childhood problems.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to hon. members, by way of introduction to the night session - we are going to have the member for St. John's South speak in a few minutes and he is going to tell us about his issues. Now that we have put the issue of child poverty on the list of things that we want to talk about for the evening, I think I will yield the floor to the Member for St. John's South who is going to share his commentary with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the House Leader. I know that he is very sincere when he talks about trying to fight child poverty, and that is something that I would want to fight as well.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I cannot understand about the Conservative position with regard to the finances of our Province is they have taken it upon themselves, in their last document called The Right Agenda For The People, to slash the payroll tax. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is $70 million a year. Now, each of us would like to slash the payroll tax. Obviously if we were in the position to do it, that is exactly what we would do. On one side of the coin you have the Conservative Party saying, we would do this and we would do that and we would do something else - all of those choices are honourable - but at the same time they say they are going to take $70 million out of the finances of the Province, out of the ability of the Province to pay for the programs that we want to have.

Mr. Chairman, in going through their document I find that they have understood and see clearly that Newfoundland and Labrador has a small population and a large debt. There is no secret in that. The fact of the matter is that a PC government will balance the budget over four years, but yet they want to do all the things they say they want to do, and at the same time eliminate $70 million worth of money that we use to pay for the things we want.

Mr. Chairman, governing, they say, involves making choices. Well, what choices did they believe in in terms of education reform. Let me tell you what choices they chose in education reform. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am going to read directly from their own document.

`The PC Party has supported, in principle, the reforms of the Williams Royal Commission and will introduce legislation on all reforms dealing with improvements.' Mr. Chairman, we applaud that, that is a good thing, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Go back to your own side of the House.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, that is essentially what we wanted to do.

Further in their document, on page 26, they say: "Government's role will be to set standards and hold school boards" accountable. That is what -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has been over here for the last fifteen minutes. Now, if you want to move over, move your seat over, but otherwise go over and sit in it where it is. Because I want to hear my colleague for Labrador West.

CHAIR: Order, please!

To that point of order. It is a valid point of order on behalf of the Government House Leader. If the hon. member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology want to carry on a conversation, I suggest they go outside.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further on in their document, still on page 26, they say, "Government will not micro-manage education." That is what they said. Every day we hear the Opposition get up and tell us how we should micro-manage education, but that is its document that it ran on in the last election, called The Right Agenda... for the People.

All the things it said in that Blue Book are not completely out to lunch. Some of it is, and some of it is not. But it can't say it on one hand in its campaign, and say something different when it sits across as the Official Opposition. Because to be a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is not just to oppose government policy, it is to offer policy alternatives, to say what would it do had it been in government. We know what it would have done, it said it right here. What did it say? It said that: "Government's role will be to set standards and hold school boards responsible for meeting and surpassing those standards...." It said that "Government will not micro-manage education."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. CANNING: That is the Conservative Party which said this during the last election, and I must say there are some things that I must agree with.

Now, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you could ask the Member for Labrador West if he would be so kind as to -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. member.

MR. H. HODDER: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: I will recognize the hon. member when there is silence.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The microphone came on before, and I apologise for looking here rather than listening to the Chair. I'm wondering if the Member for Labrador West would be so kind as to forward over a copy of these documents? Because we have a scarcity of them over here, and some of us... They have all gone out to all of the people in the Province. We sure would like to photocopy the entire document, nine copies of it, and have it forwarded over to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please! order, please!

To that point of order. It has been moved many times, and precedents in this House, that a private member has neither the right nor the obligation to table any documents.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be more than pleased to send them across a document. I'm absolutely shocked here tonight to know that not only have they not researched the government policies, but they haven't researched their own policies, which is even worse again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read it again!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, just in case you didn't hear me the first time, I should say that every time I look across the House I see the hon. House Leader across the way stand and cover himself in the red shield of that book. It makes me very proud to see that, because if I had this one I certainly wouldn't be dangling this in front of me.

What did they say in this book? Just in case you are in the public library looking for it, it is blue. It says: Newfoundland and Labrador: The Right Agenda... for the People. They say that "Government's role will be to set standards and hold school boards responsible for meeting and surpassing standards..." It says that "Government will not micro-manage education."

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the platform that they ran on, this is the document that they put their names on, the ballot, in support of, they stand here today and deny that it ever existed wanting me to send a copy across so they can read it. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will even do better than that, we will set up in our caucus room, a briefing session for the Opposition for their document from the last election, that is what we will do.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, on page 8 of their own document, they say that, "Morale in the public service is presently very low." Now, Mr. Chairman, if you listen to people across the way, the official Opposition, I am not surprised that morale is low in the whole of the Province, not just the public sector. Morale is low everywhere if you listen to what these people are saying.

What I cannot understand, these gentlemen are obviously good loyal citizens of this Province, why is it that they cannot see that opportunities like the off-shore, Hibernia, White Rose, Terra Nova, why is it that they cannot see Voisey's Bay and Whiffen Head are good things for this Province? Why is that? The fact of the matter is, they cannot at all appreciate the opportunities that are beginning to flow from our resources, but Mr. Chairman, I want to go back and I want to ask the Opposition to tell us, what priorities on page 11 of their document called, Fiscal Responsibility, where they said they, "Reduce spending on expendable and low-priority programs." Which programs are expendable, Mr. Chairman? It is up to the Official Opposition to tell us, which programs that they felt were expendable because I know one that they thought was expendable, it was the payroll tax, they were going to take out $70 million that is currently being used to finance our hospitals and schools and give it back to corporations.

Mr. Chairman, let me go one step further because I recall the official Opposition saying, that a road across Labrador was not a part of A Better Tomorrow, when the hon. minister of the day stood and told them what our vision was. What was their vision on page 20, The Right Agenda... For The People, they did not say that they were going to build a highway, they said they would, "Give priority to completion of an all-weather highway across Labrador", they would give it priority. What kind of word is a priority? We gave it reality, we made it happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: In the last election it was easy for the Opposition to say that they would have built the highway, they would have committed to the highway, well, what did they say? Wishy washy they said they would, "Give priority to completion". Mr. Chairman, there is a big difference in giving something priority and making it happen and this government made it happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Now, Mr. Chairman, my roots are of course of union roots, I take great pride in the workers of our Province and the workers that work for the Crown, but I also recognize that there are so many things that government can do and no more. Each time we talk about the need to trim the size of government, the Opposition says foul, but what did they say on page 11, they would try to create jobs that pay taxes, not depend on taxes. Mr. Chairman, that is coded language for saying that they would massively have trimmed down the size of the public sector, just as Jean Charest said last night that he would wipe out half the employees in Ottawa. He nailed the public sector last night in his debate, he said: Ottawa wouldn't be a happy place if he were Prime Minster. I believe that, I do not believe that there would be any happy places right from Cape Race right to Vancouver Island if he were the Prime Minister.

MR. H. HODDER: So you agree with laying off in Newfoundland and keeping Ottawa untouched?

MR. CANNING: I did not say that at all. I said that your particular document says that you favour jobs that pay taxes, not jobs that depend on taxes.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy, overjoyed to see jobs in the private sector, it pleases me greatly, but the Conservative Party, the Official Opposition cannot speak on both sides of their face on this particular issue. They cannot say on one hand, don't do this and don't do that and on the other hand they would say, we would balance the budget in four years. Well, if you would balance the budget, where is the plan? Where is the beef?

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, that the Conservatives, in the last campaign, had no agenda for the people - that is why they are at nine seats today - and they are not going to grow unless they have an agenda for the people. It is not good enough, it is absolutely regrettable that the Official Opposition, Her Majesty's Official Opposition, cannot articulate policies that would help this Province out of our malaise. Rather, you question and tear down everything others try to do. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that anybody can tear down a bridge but it takes a bit of skill and ability to build one, and until the Conservative Party can show that they can build a bridge, a bridge to our future, then they will not become or have hope of becoming the government of this land.

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition cannot sit around with their document and say that they did not hear of it, they do not know of it, that it is a document they have not read. If they have not read their own document, Mr. Chairman, I suspect they have not read much else. How is it that they should tell us they can do all of these things? They have no idea about what it is to take this Province to the future. The first thing they would look at would be making their corporate friends happy by eliminating the payroll tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that is the first thing.

MR. CANNING: Seventy million dollars, think of what $70 million does for health and education in this Province, $70 million over four years is $280 million. Well, what would you have cut to balance just that $280 million, never mind the rest of what we had as a deficit? What would you have done?

Mr. Chairman, nobody in this House relishes the thought of payroll tax. We would get rid of it tomorrow morning if we did not need the cash. The fact of the matter is that we need the money to pay for the things that we need in society: health care, education, social services, those kinds of things, that is what that $70 million goes for. Where would you have found that kind of money? How would you have replaced it or what would you have cut to -

MR. SULLIVAN: Lawsuits, over $100 million.

MR. CANNING: Two hundred and eighty million dollars - let the record show that the Leader of the Opposition laughs at the loss of $280 million; over a quarter of a billion dollars, and the Leader of the Opposition laughs. I can tell you, it will be no laughing matter for people who need health care, the children who need a sound education and it would certainly be no laughing matter for people who are unfortunately having to face the dire needs in social services.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you one thing, that the chances of there being -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise once again to pass a few comments on the estimates of the Executive Council.

Mr. Chairman, it is unbelievable that the Member for Labrador West knows so much about the Blue Book. That is all he has talked about all week and it seems like every member over there can open a drawer and pull out a copy of the Blue Book.

SULLIVAN: They are ashamed of the Red Book.

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not see them talking about the wonderful things in the Red Book. Not one of them over there has it or can talk about the promises that were made or what was brought forward and the minister - that is not the Red Book, that is the Budget, I say to the member from Eagle River.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Ready what? I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, you probably do not know the Budget from the Red Book. There is not much difference in it, I say to him. It is all red and it is all a bunch of crap that is in it, baloney, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is here. He finally woke up; after sitting in this House for the past fifteen months, he finally came to life tonight. I never saw a fellow so out of touch with the people of this Province and the everyday happenings of government as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. A few short months ago he would stand here and give those very compassionate speeches. He would stand and talk about the wonderful things that his government has done, all the wonderful things they are doing in his district and in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Then he went into a cocoon, Mr. Chairman. He hibernated for the past fifteen months. He arose again tonight to talk about and put forward all the wonderful things that are happening in his district.

Mr. Chairman, you can talk about the wonderful things that are happening on the Northern Peninsula, but I can tell you, it is probably one of the few district and one of the few areas of this Province where all those wonderful things are happening. It is certainly not happening in my district, I say to members opposite. It is not happening in the district of Terra Nova, I say to the member, not happening in Trinity North, not happening in Bonavista North, I say to people opposite, certainly not happening in Bellevue either according to the road that I drove out over to Sunnyside the other day. I thought the road in my district was bad. Mr. Chairman, it is the worse stretch of road through any community that I have driven over in a long time. Then we go and erect a sign to try to encourage tourists to go down through Sunnyside to view that great structure built by Newfoundlanders, the gravity-based structure that is sitting out in Bull Arm. It is shameful, Mr. Chairman.

In my district, the roads are in a deplorable condition. The schools are, I suppose, in probably worse condition than most schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. The high school in Musgravetown which takes in Terra Nova and Bonavista South, part of the two districts, Mr. Chairman, was probably one of the last schools that was built as a wooden structure back in, I would guess, 1960, a school that I know very well.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I hope you will, I say to the minister. He is always welcome in Musgravetown, he is always welcome in my district, and I know he is sincere when he talks about trying to do things out there. I know that by his co-operation in getting the people that he represents, the farmers and the loggers in that area - how accommodating he has been by opening his office door to them and sitting down with them for hours at a time, listening to their concerns and frustrations. I believe he will try to institute some change there and bring about better living conditions, not only in his own district but in my district as well. I believe that.

Mr. Chairman, when you see schools like we have in Musgravetown, schools like we have in Lethbridge, where people have to put pails in the classroom to catch the leaks when it rains - the condition of some of those schools in which we try to educate our children, is nothing short of shameful.

I say to the Member for Labrador West - and he continues to stand here, it is obvious where he is trying to get. He is trying to make a move from the back benches to the front benches, but I tell him, he is going about it in the wrong way. He will never get there by standing back there and just singing the tunes of government. Because what will happen to him is, he will end up like the Member for Eagle River who tried, in the former government, to do the same thing. How often he would stand in this Chamber and talk about the wonderful things the Liberal government was doing. How often would he stand in this Chamber and talk about how proud he was to be a Liberal, how proud he was of his member up in Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. FITZGERALD: The former Member for Eagle River, and you know what happened to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, he took on his constituents. He did not come here and represent his constituents, that is what happened to him. He sung to the tune of the Premier, he sung to the tune of the Cabinet and the front benches and he forgot his people. He forgot the most important people of all and you cannot do that today. You cannot do that today, you have to dance with the one that `brung' you, I say to the Member for Labrador West.

I will make a prediction here tonight - 9:49 p.m. - that that member will never be re-elected in his district again. I make that prediction here tonight, the Member for Labrador West. If he maintains the route that he is on, if he maintains going in that direction, as fine a fellow as he is, he will never be re-elected to this House again. He will be a one-time member; he will be a one-time wonder, I say to members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He will never be re-elected. Ask the former Member for Bonavista North, the Member for Fogo - Twillingate at one time. Ask him what happened when he forgot his constituents. That member sat here in this House in Opposition for ten or twelve years, and the people who elected him knew full well who was going to form the government. He went through a period of time here similar to what we are going through now. In fact, I would suggest there were probably fewer of them at that time, because there were seven members, I know, at one time when the member sat here. But there is one thing he did; he represented his people. And on the end there was a term where he got led astray, and he went in a different direction and forgot the people who elected him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: What happened when he went back to them? They forgot him. They gave him a slap on the wrist. He was fortunate enough to be able to go back and get elected again. They gave him another opportunity, and I can tell you now, even though he sits in the front benches, that he will never turn his back on his constituents again.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, here goes the member getting up on a point of order. There is no point of order, I suggest.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the hon. member that the most precarious position in this House is that of the Leader of the Opposition, because we know what the Opposition do to their leaders.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, does that not remind you of the former Member for Eagle River? Does it not remind you? The silliness that the Member for Labrador West gets on with - a prime example of why that member will never be back here again.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: How often? This is my second term, I say to the Government House Leader, this is my second term. I might never get elected again, but there is one thing that they will never be able to accuse me of and that is not representing the people that sent me here. That is one thing that I will never ever be able to be accused of. When I get up in this House to speak, I speak with what I heard out in my district, a place that I visit every week, Mr. Chairman. I spent about three weekends in St. John's -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I was standing there with the people that elected me, I say to the hon. House leader. I drove out and I got out and I stood with them for an hour.

MR. TULK: Made a fool of yourself.

MR. FITZGERALD: No I did not make a fool of myself.

I stood there with my constituents and I spoke with them and I left and then I went to a graduation down in my district. No, I did not organize it, I had no part in organizing it, but I know full well where the people were coming from. All they wanted to do was speak to the first minister of this country. They wanted to speak to the minister of this country for an hour of his time. That is all they asked for. If the Prime Minster came out -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know, you better ask the organizers that. I was on my way to my district -

MR. SULLIVAN: Roger, tell him it was not a photo opt down to the hotel.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, that probably was not a photo opt, but it was a big photo opt, that is all it was, but the people that were there were frustrated people that deserved to be listened to. They were citizens of this Province, they had problems that the Prime Minster caused. They wanted their concerns address and that was all they were asking for, I say to the Government House Leader. They wanted ten minutes of the Prime Ministers time so they could address their concerns and put forward their frustrations.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Do I have leave (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Before I recognize the hon. Government House Leader, there is some unfinished business of the House.

MR. TULK: Okay, that is what I wanted to bring up.

CHAIR: The Chair ruled the comments made by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition were unparliamentary. The hon. member wasn't in the House to withdraw his remarks. I would ask the hon. member now to withdraw.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the remarks.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't going to stand tonight, but I just spent the last eleven days up in a single-engine aircraft bouncing around in my riding. I hear some good news and some bad news, so I thought I would join some of my colleagues on this side of the House today to speak briefly about a better tomorrow. I want to just talk very briefly on some of the things we have changed over the last fourteen months.

Shortly after being elected I was able to secure $1.3 million in emergency work for the community of Nain. I thank the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and Cabinet for approving that. With the help of the hon. Minister of Environment and Lands and the former Minister of Natural Resources, Dr. Rex Gibbons, we cleaned up the airstrip in Nain, a total disaster that caused panic to the people. Working with the ministers, we cleaned it up.

Government also made available a helicopter, and we took a monitor each from the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation, and we went inland and inspected camps, and got people to clean up for the first time. With my buddy the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture we were able to change rules and regulations and we installed refrigeration. For the first time in fifteen years we finally got the refrigeration in, and we employed people in Makkovik and the southern communities. The first time ever.

We are in the process of building a health care unit in the community of Postville. With the help of my good friend the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, we are very close to starting up a sawmill operation in the community of Postville. With help from my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture we got the Nain Banker that is going to provide stable -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thanks to my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Torngat Fisheries was given a crab processing licence. With the help of the minister we were able to secure 100 metric tons of crab for the plant this summer. We were also able to secure 200 tons of turbot given to Torngat Fisheries and the Labrador Inuit Development Corporation. With the help of the minister, we ensured the biggest quota of shrimp that was given to anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, when I came here first we talked about a school, and I raised it the first time I spoke in the House, of the community in Hopedale. Thanks to the Minister of Education and a few more people, we secured the funds for a new school in the community of Hopedale.

Myself and the Premier travelled to the community of Rigolet for the general meeting for the Labrador Inuit Association. During our trip there we secured $55,000 to build a bridge. The community of Rigolet for twenty-five years was screaming out for a gymnasium. This government is not only going to build a new gymnasium, we are going to build a new school in the community of Rigolet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, we came along to the community of Nain, a very fast growing community where the school had adequate space and I am proud to say that this government is going to build a new elementary school in the community of Nain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, just this past year in working with different people in the provincial government, along with our federal member, we were able to secure $300,000 for the community of Hopedale where we are going to rebuild the (inaudible) Church. I stand to be corrected but I do believe we have the oldest wooden building in the world. We were good to my good friend the hon. Sandra Kelly and together we will make that into a tourist attraction that will bring more money into our community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that my good friend, the hon. Kevin Aylward, has assured me that there will be money to clean up the community in Hopedale and to go back and (inaudible) the water system, something that the people were looking for, for a long time.

Mr. Chairman, that is very briefly but I tell you, it is this government that turned around and listened to the people and we brought in the food subsidy for Labrador. The first time ever that a food subsidy was used in Coastal Labrador by the provincial government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say I am shocked because it is not the word, when I hear the Opposition talk of cutting the seats back to forty. I can tell the hon. members across the way that if you think that Labrador can survive with two seats then I challenge you and I dare you to come into my riding and see if you can split Labrador in two and have two members. It cannot be done. Mr. Chairman, it is ludicrous even to hear. Maybe that is one of the reasons why they had to parachute a candidate from Ottawa to run for the seat in Labrador.

I travelled through eleven communities in this past week and people said: Are the Opposition serious when they want to cut Labrador back to two seats? I said well I have not been officially told but if that is what they are doing it is a step in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, I thank all my colleagues in the House, on this side of the House for tremendous support -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct, for the record, nobody on this side has ever espoused a position that said that Labrador would have two seats. That has never been said by any member on this side of the House. So the record will show accurately that what the member is saying in his address is incorrect and maybe we could have the record show that we have not put forward a petition consistent with what the member is saying.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, legislation will dictate that if this Province goes to forty seats than Labrador will be cut back to two.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't agree with that.

MR. ANDERSEN: But, Mr. Chairman, I take great pride in standing here today to thank the members on this side of the House and just as important, I thank all members in Caucus, they are called backbenchers but they have given me 110 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: They have supported me at times when I have gone to ministers and came back and the answer was no. They were the ones who said, `listen go back in there again,' and that's what we did.

Mr. Chairman, I think for the first time the people in my riding feel a sense of belonging. I tell you why they feel that sense of belonging, it is because of the Liberal's commitment of building a better tomorrow. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for assisting me and I thank the people in my riding for giving me the opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: Well maybe if you worked a little harder you might get some.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this government working out a land claims deal with the Labrador Inuit Association. I look forward to working with both parties. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the House of Assembly, and my buddy from Labrador West and the hon. Member for Lake Melville. I guess it speaks for itself that we are building a brighter future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Before I recognize the hon. Member for St. John's South, I would like to remind hon. members, and a lot of it has been going on here tonight, that in this House we refer to hon. members by the district they represent, and we refer to the hon. ministers by the portfolio they occupy, and not by the names of individuals. I didn't want to interrupt the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains who was giving such a fine speech, but I remind him in future to avoid using the names of individuals. He isn't the only one, of course. There have been other members here tonight shouting across names of individuals rather than calling members by their...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I suggest if hon. members wanted entertainment tonight they could have bought tickets to the hockey game down at the lakeside.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember about a year and a half ago when the Member for Torngat Mountains first stood in this House and gave a very stern warning to the government that his district had been abused and used and misused for many years. I commend the Member for Torngat Mountains for what he has achieved in his area. However, I will say it is long overdue in his particular area, and the government is only doing right by doing what it has done in his area. It wasn't only under Tory rule. The last seven years, I would say, the District of Torngat Mountains has done without, and that was quite evident in the member's first speech in this House.

The Member for Labrador West just a little while ago talked about the payroll tax and how our government wants to eliminate the payroll tax. He is quite right, it is a regressive tax. If we were to eliminate the payroll tax we would create more employment. There would be more money in the pockets of employees and employers. There would be more small businesses stay in business as opposed to go out of business. There would be more small businesses able to expand, grow, and hire more employees.

He talked about the fact where would we get the $70 million. The Province can't afford $70 million. Where would we get the $70 million if we eliminated the payroll tax? That is a good question. Probably even a better question is, with the introduction of the HST - and the government of this day says that it is doing without $100 million, putting it back into the pockets of the people of the Province, because the high tax was a regressive tax -, where are we getting that $100 million? Where are we getting the $100 million with the combination of the GST and the RST under the new HST system?

So the payroll tax could have been eliminated. It would have been a big boost to small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. It would have created employment. It would have been a boost to something that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has been trying very hard to do apparently for eight years, create new business in our Province. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment in trying to create employment in our Province. So we could have afforded to eliminate the payroll tax and we would have been $30 million to the good as opposed to the introduction of the HST.

The Member for Labrador West stood in his place and condemned the members on this side of the House for our book, The Right Agenda for the People but that was for an election that was a year-and-a-half ago. What the member seems to overlook is that right now today there is a federal election on the go and the federal red book promised to eliminate the GST. That was a broken promise. They camouflaged it under the HST in the Atlantic region.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who brought in the GST, Tom?

MR. OSBORNE: It wasn't me, I will tell you that. It wasn't me, that's a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't blame me for the GST.

MR. OSBORNE: Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, promised to eliminate the GST. He lied through his teeth and said he didn't say it but he did. He lied through his teeth and said there was no such promise but there was. He promised to eliminate the GST and that was a promise broken in the federal red book. That was a promise broken.

He complained about the North American Free Trade Agreement. He was going to scrap that. He was going to scrap the free trade but yet when he got in power all of a sudden he realized that it was a good thing and he expanded it to include Mexico. Prime Minister Chrétien, when he was campaigning in 1993, promised to eliminate and wipe out free trade but he expanded it to include Mexico. Another promise broken in the federal red book.

Two years ago Canada was brought to its knees almost on Canadian unity with the prospects of Quebec separating and the Prime Minister's performance was dismal. The Prime Minister almost blew it. The Prime Minister showed very, very poorly in the fight against Quebec separation. So I don't think it is the right agenda book, the blue book from the last provincial election that should be scrutinized today. I think it is the federal red book that should be scrutinized and a fine showing of that was in the debate last night. In the comments through all sources of the media today when they say that Jean Charest out-performed all the other leaders. Jean Chrétien did not perform nearly as well. As a matter of fact, Jean Charest out-performed all other leaders and the Leader of the NDP even out-performed Jean Chrétien. The federal Leader of the NDP out-performed Jean Chrétien. He performed dismally last night and all members of the media picked up on that. So it is the federal red book that should be under scrutiny. It is the federal red book that we should be taking and criticizing here tonight because it is the federal red book that failed Canadians. They promised to create jobs in the last 1993 election. They promised to create jobs in the last 1993 election. Yet they have not created jobs. Jean Chrétien has performed dismally. The American economy is prospering and doing very well, and yet the Canadian economy is sliding behind. The American economy is employing more and more people. Employment in the United States is at probably one of the lowest records in its history, with the exception of war times, and the Canadian economy still has a very high unemployment rate. Jean Chrétien has not delivered on his promises.

I think the Member for Labrador West, if he is going to criticise any book of promises, it is the Liberal 1993 book of promises, a book our Premier played a part in, a book our Premier toted around his district when he was a federal member and preached out of, a book our Premier was proud to say was part of his mandate, and he was part of the failure in Ottawa. He failed the people of this Province with the changes to the EI program. He failed the people of this Province with the changes to TAGS program. The Premier of this Province failed this Province miserably when he was a member in Ottawa.

I will say that what we should be concentrating on here today is maximizing our resources, maximizing the benefits we receive from our resources. It is easy to stand in this House and talk about an election that happened a year and a half ago, when we should be looking at what is happening in the federal election today. What are we going to do to maximize the benefits from our resources? What are we going to do to maximize the benefits from Gisborne Lake, Voisey's Bay and Hibernia?

The Prime Minister took his Liberal bus out to Hibernia. He was going to take that out and make a big photo opportunity out of it and christen the GBS. Yet the Prime Minister, I remember, criticised the Hibernia project when he was in Opposition in Ottawa when it was Brian Peckford and John Crosbie who signed that deal, and the Prime Minister of today criticised the Hibernia deal when he was in Opposition in Ottawa. Yet he was more than willing to come down and take all the credit for that today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Bill Marshall wouldn't sign the agreement in (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I don't remember that, I wasn't in office at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) amnesia, are you?

MR. OSBORNE: Yes. Bill who?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill the fire marshall.

MR. OSBORNE: Bill the fire marshall. I remember the Prime Minister condemned the Hibernia deal when he was in the Opposition in Ottawa, and yet he is willing to take credit for it today. He was willing to take credit for it when he came down for the christening, he and Mr. Tobin willing to take credit.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hour must be getting late and we all must be getting a bit weary. Sitting down and listening to the hon. member opposite, I was wondering why he was so concerned about the GST, but the more I think about his career in life, the more I understand that his concerns about the GST are real.

I have had the opportunity to speak to a lot of people around the Province, most recently, 500 students last week down in the hon. members district, 500 students, 125 in each group and after listening to the Member for Waterford Valley and the member from tombstone, I understand why these people are not motivated, why students are so negative, because I do not need much sleep, in fact three or four hours a day is enough for me in any twenty-four hour period, but the last half an hour here in this House, I have had a job to stay awake listening to the members opposite.

MR. TULK: Negative, (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Negative, how negative can you possible be. Make no wonder our young people are negative, make no wonder they have no outlook, make no wonder they are laid back and do not see any future in the Province when you listen to tripe like is coming from members opposite. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tripe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Utter tripe.

MR. EFFORD: My colleague from Twillingate & Fogo keeps saying that the members opposite want to disassociate themselves from their former colleagues, with their pasts. I do not understand why. I mean, they had such an exciting past, they were motivated, they wanted to get things done, they wanted to turn around the economy in this Province, they wanted to get people motivated, they wanted to get people use to eating cucumbers and pickles, they were bent on it. They did not want this Province to lie down, they could not understand why Newfoundlanders could not associate themselves with cucumbers and pickles, so they devised this plan. They engaged a number of people -

AN HON. MEMBER: They fed the cows.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, they did - they engaged a number of people to sit down, to put their heads together, to put their thoughts together. How do we motivate Newfoundlanders? How do we get Newfoundlanders to concentrate on the lights of Mount Pearl? How do we get Newfoundlanders to tune in to what cucumbers are all about and then the next step, how do we get them into pickles? I tell you, Mr. Chairman, they engaged some top quality people, in fact one of them was Muriel Reid, wife of the former member for Trinity Bay.

MR. TULK: He was a minister too.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, yes, Carol Peckford, wife of the Premier. Sue Ottenheimer, wife of the Minister of Justice at the time, Francis Butt, wife of John Butt, the Minister of Environment at the time, Irene Collins, my good friend Dr. John Collins, who had all those buildings rented to government, remember.

MR. TULK: I remember that.

MR. EFFORD: And a number of other people, but they really put a lot of work into this, we have to think about how much energy. Now, the Member for St. John's South should key into this one because in the near future he may have his mom in here and it reads something like this: `Low calory snack time, gee mom -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, but it begins like this and it says: Gee mom this is good. Very simple, it did not take much intelligence to put this together: Two or more slices of melba toast, cut cucumber fine and layer over toast, salt and pepper to taste, add gratted cheddar and dressing if you so desire, that is space science. It gets better, Mr. Chairman, -

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a best seller.

MR. EFFORD: It gets better, wait now this is the one, this is motivation for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially the surrounding Mount Pearl, the lights in the centre of the city, 'cucumber tomato soup', there is no signature as to who wrote this one: If my hubby called and said company for dinner, I would be proud to whip up this. Now you have to remember you are motivating Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You have to read it, you have to listen, we are motivating people, we want people to be excited, we want the had not days to be no more and there is where we go and now you have to remember how we start this one: One Newfoundland cucumber peeled and cut into pieces, three green onions or oneteaspoon of chopped chives. I tell you, we never had many chives in Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. EFFORD: One quarter teaspoon of salt, one-eighth of a teaspoon of pepper, two and a half cups of milk. Now, it gets better. I don't know how to pronounce this. One teaspoon of Worcester sauce.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I got this one. It gets better. One tin and three-quarter ounce of canned condensed tomato soup. This is how you put it all together. This is how the Tories designed how to put it together. All of this motivation. In blender combine all ingredients. Blend at medium speed until smooth. Refrigerate several hours. Process again to mix just before serving. Garnish with a sliced green onion on top or... chives.

We go on down. This gets better. Cut the cucumber in half, but you have to cut it in half lengthwise, down the centre. Scoop out as much pulp as possible without breaking the skin. Brown onion in butter. Add other ingredients. Mix with cucumber pulp, stirring constantly. Cook for five minutes. Now, it gets better. Place filling in cucumber shells. Bake in pre-heated oven at 3750 until shells are soft and mixture is brown on top.

Mr. Chairman, the one that really gets me, the concentration that every thought went in this one, is Bev's Favourite Dip. You should be really proud, gentlemen, members opposite should be really proud. This is Bev's Favourite Dip.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh no! This is Carol's! Carol's or Irene's, I'm not sure which. One Newfoundland cucumber again, one package of Uncle Dan's Original Southern Salad Dressing Mix. Don't use mayonnaise. One cup of milk. Now, mix Uncle Dan's mayonnaise and milk until you get the consistency you like. I don't know how to get the consistency out of cucumber you would like, but... Slice and arrange cucumbers on a plate and put your dip dish in the middle. This would be yum-yum-yummie.

Mr. Chairman, that is the record of seventeen years of Tory government. This is a record of have-not times will be no more. Left the people of this Province $7 billion in debt, $585 million a year in taxes, $7 billion a year. A government in disarray. They ended off their term in office with a statement like this.

MR. SULLIVAN: Two billion dollars since 1989 extra in debt! (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

I had recognized the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It isn't hard to know when you are getting to them. The truth hurts. Because the fact is we had seventeen years of a total mismanagement of a government. After reading -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. EFFORD: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to join in the high level of debate which is taking on this evening in this hon. House. I have come to learn that the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is a great man of lists. He likes lists - recipes, names, lists of events. What I would like to do, because lists seem to be something which is of importance to the hon. minister, is refer to an article which appeared in the Friday, March 14 edition of The Evening Telegram. It is a very intriguing list, and I would just like to refer to the list. It is a list, for example, of appointments by the hon. Premier, called The High Tech Advisory Council, and I would just like to review the contents of the editorial.

It states that Premier Brian Tobin named fifteen people to the Premier's Advisory Council on Economy and Technology Thursday past in the House of Assembly. The new Advisory Council will provide advice to the Premier and other members of the provincial government in several areas, including economic policy, business development, competitiveness, science and technology, sustainable development and, as well, how to integrate both the environment and the economy.

It goes on to state that this council, this High Tech Advisory Council, is made up of prominent business leaders who have the knowledge and the expertise to respond to requests for advice, and to make recommendations on questions that the Premier or Cabinet ministers refer to them. These men and women are the leaders of our economy.

What I am not sure of is really the background of these individuals in terms primarily of their political affiliations, and I am going to ask members on this side, my colleagues in the Opposition, if they could assist me. We have the Chairman of this High Tech Advisory Council, Mr. Peter Woodward of Happy Valley, political affiliation, I say, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Council members include - again, I need my colleagues to assist me - Bill Buffett of Grand Bank, political affiliation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Liberal.

Moya Cahill of St. John's, political affiliation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Howard Hewitt of Cormack, political affiliation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Exactly.

Let's see, the date, Friday, March 14 - position on that date, I say to the hon. member.

Clyde Melendy of Corner Brook, political affiliation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberal.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mary O'Brien of St. John's, political affiliation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Bill Parsons of St. John's, political affiliation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is one here that I am not really sure of; I will need some assistance from my colleagues. Ches Penny of St. John's - any help?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Ann Rose of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Lewis Rose of Glovertown

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Derek Rowe of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Wes Simms of Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Catherine Small of Clarenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Steve Vessey of Lab. City.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberals.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Bruce Wareham of Arnold's Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Of course, they are all Tory. We have more Tories on this committee...

The fact remains, this is a list which unfortunately the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture refuses to acknowledge, refused to, of course, share in this hon. House. He only continues to refer to a list, some recipe book, which quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen, a recipe book which obviously amuses the hon. minister. This is the list which the hon. minister ought to be concerned about, I say, Mr. Chairman, because it is an appointment made less then two months ago by the Premier of this Province, an appointment made to a high-tech advisory council of individuals named to assist in, for example, economic policy, business development, competitiveness, technology and so on. It is this list that ought to be of concern to the hon. minister, not some receipt book which obviously the people of this Province have absolutely no interest in whatsoever. This is a list, I say to the hon. minister, and it is one which I will be happy to photocopy and share with him at his request.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: He is up again, old tombstone has awoke.

CHAIR (Walsh): The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries keeps referring to a sacred book and it is very entertaining and very enlightening, it is always delightful to hear him when he gets up and reads these receipts and portrays them so vividly.

I wonder do hon. members recall the reason why the previous adminstration took the tax payers dollars and published this book which now has become so renowned and so famous in the annals of Newfoundland history, of Newfoundland literature.

MR. FITZGERALD: The same reason why your Premier is taking french lessons.

MR. DECKER: This book is a famous book. Do hon. members remember why is was published? If you do not I will take to few minutes to enlighten you.

You see when the Sprung greenhouse was built it was predicted that the facility was going to produce hundreds of thousands of pounds of cucumbers. Now, cucumbers are not part of the staple diet of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I remember when I grew up in Roddickton, on a Saturday afternoon your mother would write a note for you to go to the store. There would be ten pound of turnip, some carrots, some potatoes and maybe some can green peas. Now, that was the extent of our Sunday dinner, so cucumber was not a part of our staple food when I was growing up. I think the same was true, as I say it was in Roddickton, I would say the Main Brook people would have the same, they were not overly familiar with cucumbers, Port au Choix, Port de Grave, Avondale, it was not something that was a part of our diet, so here was the Newfoundland government, they had a predicament. They knew that when this greenhouse got in operation, cucumbers would quite literally be coming out thorough their ears. Millions of pounds of cucumbers would be produced, but yet Newfoundlanders were not use to eating cucumbers, so they had to find a way to get our people addicted to this new vegetable, which was going to become so plentiful in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, they were not unlike the drug dealers, Mr. Chairman. I have heard it said that drug dealers will come out and they will sell a little bit of a particular drug to an unsuspecting person and get this person -, here we are - how we get addicted. Here we are in Time magazine today, talk about prophesy, they prophesied my speech that I am going to make tonight. The intent is to sell drugs for very little money, get the person on a small dose, a little larger, the next thing you know he is hooked.

Now, this was the intent with this cookbook and it worked, Mr. Chairman. Shortly after this book was published the people in Conche were crying out more, more, we want more cucumbers, bring them down. When I would go back to my district, I would take my suit case with my suit and a spare shirt and a half a dozen cucumbers for my poor old grandmother. It was on the black market. You go to Russia, you would take a few pair of jeans, remember in the old days of the Soviet Union, you take some jeans in your suitcase and Russia would open up to you. You go up to the District of the Straits of Belle Isle after this cucumber book got out, everybody was screaming out for cucumbers. You carry a suitcase full of your shirts and ties, and another case full of cucumbers. Because people were addicted to cucumbers.

Mr. Chairman, you know what happened. One day when Dawn and Phil came in to the government of the day - and remember there was a minister there, a Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. The last Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development in the Peckford Administration. Do you remember who he was? We all know who he was. He was the man who had the guts to say to Phil and Dawn: Enough's enough. Remember Charlie Power resigned? The Administration was then in very tough times, and our colleague now became minister. He had the guts to say to Dawn and Phil: Enough's enough. No more. She is stopped.

Of course, we all know what happened. It was downhill after that. The production of cucumbers in Newfoundland and Labrador stopped, it was no more. But that wasn't the end of it. We had 570,000 people who were addicted to cucumber, yet the source had dried up, because of this darned cookbook which was so successful it got everybody hooked.

In 1989 the government changed. We became the governing party.

AN HON. MEMBER: You became the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: We looked at all the problems in Newfoundland and Labrador. The $580 million in interest. What was the Sprung thing? We had to go and pay that off, $24 million. Remember where we told the Royal Bank not to advance any more money, we would not take responsibility? We said that before we got in power. When we came in power, where the previous Administration refused to call the House together, all this money had been given out on special warrants. We, who had warned the banks we would not honour those loans, had to bring them into the House. You should have heard the Opposition criticising us for honouring the debts that it ran up on Sprung. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, we weren't too anxious to do it, but we thought about the money markets of the world and what would happen if we refused to honour a debt.

These were the problems we were confronted with. After seventeen years when the previous Administration used to pave roads based on how you voted, used to give water and sewer programs based on whether you were a Liberal or Tory or whatever, all pure politics, all these problems. We were able to deal with them. But the biggest problem we had was 560,000 people who were addicted to cucumbers. That was a major problem. I was Minister of Health, as someone pointed out, at the time, and it started turning up.

The addiction of the people was bad enough, but there was a worse addiction. Just think back now. When this cucumber plant was producing cucumbers, they tried to sell them in Newfoundland, they glutted the market, got everybody addicted, then they were exporting them. But now there was another addiction which was even worse than that of the Newfoundland people being addicted to (inaudible). What did they do with the surplus cucumbers?

They took truckloads and trucked them out around the bay to the farmers and they dumped them, and who ate them? The cows ate them! Here we are with 560,000 people addicted to cucumbers because of this stupid cookbook, and how many cows are in Newfoundland and Labrador, Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods?

MR. TULK: Oh, 20,000, 23,000.

MR. DECKER: We had 23,000 cows which were addicted to cucumbers. Because of Rick Woodford who pulled the plug on Dawn and Phil Sprung, wouldn't give them any more money, there are no more cucumbers being produced. Now, ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine the problems that that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mad cow disease.

MR. DECKER: Talk about mad cow disease.

You know, the damage that Sprung Greenhouse did - everyone is aware of the $25 million. After tonight everybody will be aware that a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were addicted, and also our cows were addicted, so I don't know how much longer this is going to go on. It is just another problem that we have to deal with, and I assure members of this House that we are quite capable of dealing with that major problem too.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister ended so quickly. I was really engrossed, and enjoying the comments on the debate last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I was wondering if the parachute opened. I wanted to ask the minister. If his parachute opened, I would like to know, to be honest with you. Actually, when I was in Labrador they did not have a candidate there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, when I was leaving that day I heard a name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he wanted to go down and create some jobs in Labrador.

I listened with amusement to the minister on Sprung. You can count me out as one of the people who likes cucumbers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you addicted?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. I certainly did not get addicted to cucumbers, and I don't intend to start now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever buy any?

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever buy any?

MR. SULLIVAN: Never. Oh, we buy them but I don't eat them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is it. I know. It is a tremendous concept.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Did he? How silly, I say. And for the Member for Humber Valley to go in and take over a cucumber operation -

AN HON. MEMBER: A good member.

MR. SULLIVAN: A good member, yes; maybe he was. To be honest with you, I wasn't too sold on the cucumber business. If we were going to put a cucumber operation here in this Province, I wouldn't put it in the location that was selected. I would look at an area that has... In fact, it would work better most of the year in Labrador, with longer days and more sunlight. We were going to put it down in the minister's own riding of Humber Valley. That would be a better place to put it, certainly not on the Avalon Peninsula where most of the time you need to cut through the fog.

It wasn't a good business venture. I can tell you, it is one that I would not invest a cent in here in the Province, but there are many successful operations. I visited many successful operations of other types, the Heinz operation in Southern Ontario. I have seen many operations that have been successful in areas, and I am not sure I would have selected cucumbers, and I certainly would not have selected the location.

Sometimes people get carried away. When you make a mistake, sometimes you try to make the best decisions. Some people try to make the best decisions, but when you realize it was a bad decision, don't justify it; cut your losses and get out early. That is probably something that did not happen, and it is very difficult to run any type of operation through the media. The media ran the cucumber operation. It is very difficult to do that. Maybe the worst thing for businesses, actually, are governments and media. Leave them alone and let them operate. Don't prop up businesses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Privatize the liquor store? I will give you my comments on that. I don't have any problem at all. I feel, in rural areas in this Province where it is not practical to have a liquor store open from early morning to late night, where you cannot justify a separate liquor store, put it out to private business. We should not subsidize the operation in rural areas. In larger urban areas where we, as a Province, can operate and make a profit, here in St. John's and other centres, on liquor stores, why would we turn over profitable businesses, on the sale of them? We can make more money if we can maximize it. I do not base decisions re privatization on the philosophy of whether we should privatize or remain in the public sector. Every decision must be made on the basis of cost-effectiveness. It has to stand alone as a separate. I do not support working long hours keeping a store open in rural areas; if a business can build that into their operation, more power to them. Topsail Road has one of largest sales, I believe, here in the Province. Kenmount Road, outlets around St. John's here can turn a profit back here, it can be done efficiently, you have the numbers of people utilizing it. Why should you give away a bonanza to private business and get ten per cent? Ten percent of the first $500,000 in sales and five per cent after that is what they get - ten per cent on the first half million. Why should we do it when we can keep employees, we can keep the expertise, the advice they give? There are a lot of purposes that people serve, it is not just passing out a bottle of liquor and checking it through a cash register. There are services that people like to have which require expertise, and if it can be done at a profit, that is what should be done. I have no doubt on that. I hope government will follow the same procedure here. I hope they follow the same thing, I do not have any qualms in stating that. I have stated in rural areas the same basic thing.

Now, if the member has any other questions that he wants answered, if not I will get back to this tremendous debate by Jean Charést, he did well, it said; by all accounts, he did quite well. He is an excellent leader. If the provincial party had one like him we would not have any problem.

MR. H. HODDER: He speaks French.

MR. SULLIVAN: He speak French, he makes common sense, he is young, he is energetic, he has experience, he appeals to Canadians, he is a Canadian.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: Jean Charést.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, he has, and I bet he is going to have the highest percentage of increase in seats of any party in Canada. I can say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Go back to sleep, I say to the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Go back to sleep again.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The role of a public service is to provide a service to the public in the most cost-efficient manner possible. If it can be done by running it in-house, that should be done. We should not be subsidizing services to the public when they can be run more efficiently and cost-effectively through the private sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am just getting to that. I am getting to that and I will address that, too, if the member wants an answer.

We save $1.8 million on parks, ninety some employees, fifty-five going to work, twenty-five - they are still almost all being employed, some twelve weeks instead of twenty, cut back; a very, very insignificant amount of savings government is going to realize, right now on what they done on parks. Very little, and still you are taking away - there are services in this Province that provide a public service that people should maintain and that should be supported out of tax dollars. Recreation centres do not make money, they are a service, roads are a service to the people of the Province, parks are a service to the people of the Province. We need a balance between private operations out there and public parks in the Province and it is important, I think it is very important. I mean, how many swimming pools in this Province make a profit? Does that mean there should be none? How many arenas make a profit? Not many, but we have an arena that pays for itself in our district. In fact I happened to chair the board for four years - a private arena that is owned by the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Only when provoked, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gordie Howe has nothing on him.

MR. SULLIVAN: I went three years without getting a penalty playing hockey.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but when you are black and blue from head to foot, there is a time when you say enough is enough. That is what the people of the Province are now saying: Enough is enough. They are black and blue and green and yellow and every colour from the pounding they are getting. There is a time when you have to stand up and fight. When you do not get a penalty in three years, that cannot be considered too dirty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes you do, and I was on the ice, I can tell you - played 70 per cent of some games, I say to the member. I was there when the buzzer sounded.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I was his first coach, actually, in provincial competition - taught him everything I knew. He learned the other 90 per cent somewhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) of the Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? That is it, he did. He had it tough. Well, we had to play hockey when we grew up, I must say - we went down in the morning and played hockey all day long.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He was our goalie and our school vice-principal, and my campaign manager. That makes him even better. He was my campaign manager in the last election. In the last two elections, actually, he was my campaign manager. That is why I won so easily.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good people.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, good people up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not think the Government House Leader wants the debate adjourned right now. If he does I will certainly do that. I say to him, you are only the deputy, deputy Government House Leader. You cannot dictate the order of business here. That is the job for the Government House Leader, I might add.

I played hockey, by the way, with the Minister of Education. He played us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He was not too bad. We used to give him a little bit of ice time now and then. He was pretty good, I must say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he play against you?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he played on our team one year, the Holyrood Golden Eagles I think it was, somewhere way back. We were recruits, myself and a couple of more, and I think the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you win?

MR. SULLIVAN: We won - went all around the Province, won our region and went to Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Labrador City.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? No, he was not then. He did so many bad things as head of a teachers' union and here in government that he became a dirty player. He got into politics too long. That does not help.

AN HON. MEMBER: He joined the Liberal Party.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right, he joined the Liberal Party, and he learned quickly, I might add.

Mr. Charést fares well. PM has sailed over job records. We talk about a job record. People stand in this House and talk about our economy here in this Province. In 1989 there were 205,000 people working in our Province, today 190,000 - fifteen thousand less working than when this government came to power. Now, if you call that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they the ones who went away?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there are more besides that who went away. In fact, statistics now - they are not using the same basic (inaudible) in statistics. People gave up looking for work in the Province, too. There are so many more unemployed. The real statistics do not show up in the unemployed because people have stopped looking for work. They have been out of the workforce. There are fewer people. Can you imagine, 15,000 fewer people working? And they had a campaign to bring home every mother's son. My god, how many mothers' sons are in British Columbia, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Ontario, and all over this country?

MR. H. HODDER: No, no, he brought home Mrs. Tobin's son.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, only one mother's son came back home.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Whatever they did, yes, sure. To do that with Sprung, maybe they should send them out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He played hockey - I hear, when I was down in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, that the hon. minister plays hockey down there, with, by the way, I think, Dave Pollock, one of my former coaches there. Do you play with him? I asked him if he is a dirty player.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does this all have to do with (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: It has to do with the economy. If we had a vibrant economy you could play hockey, you could work, you could -

MR. HARRIS: Are you penalty-killing now?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not. I consider it a power play. You are all mixed up. We have the power play on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) puck.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm trying to pass the buck, yes. Dealing with the Budget is pass the buck, I guess.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: And it is getting so exciting. You have three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I am not sure if I can find enough to say to keep me going for three more minutes. I did not even get to the nature -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have two left.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, it is two. It goes so fast when I am speaking, the minutes just fly. They tick off the clock.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the amendments that the Minister of Environment and Labour said on public television would be brought back to the session of the House in the winter. When March arrived it was going to be dealt with this spring, and now no more amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, no problem. We are opposed to any type of legislation that discriminates against people on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. In society today you cannot discriminate against individuals. It is a society out there today in which everybody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Probably, unlike your Premier, when I speak, I speak for our party. I am not sure whether the Government House Leader or the Premier speaks for your party. I will speak for our party on these matters.

It was promised to come in, and the minister has shied away from it for the last several months - last fall, last winter. One thing I will say to the minister: You do not have any trouble finding out where our party stands on matters.

The Member for Labrador West asked where we stood on two or three issues; I gave him answers. I have been asking questions for the past year in this position and I have not gotten any answers. I don't know where the government stands, and they are supposed to be making decisions. God help us; they are supposed to be making decisions on many issues and they have not been able to get to the point.

I think the Premier puts his head out the window in the morning and sees what way the wind is blowing that day, and that is the way he goes. It is like the guy who led his troops. He was standing off to the side and somebody said, `What are you doing over there?' He said, `Oh, I am trying to see what way they are going so I can lead them.' That is the type of leadership we are getting in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Since the time is near at hand and my Opposition House Leader is calling for a time out here, I will adjourn debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I am sorry. I will not adjourn debate. We are going to have a vote on this. I will just sit down and the Government House Leader will call the question.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, if I could, before you call the question, I understand from the Opposition House Leader that we are prepared to, by agreement - and with the NDP member - call the Executive Council first, Consolidated Fund Services second, Contingency Reserve third, and to save the remainder of the time, which is about, I think, three hours and one minute that is left in the Estimates -

AN HON. MEMBER: Three hours (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Three hours, yes; I have a minute used.

Mr. Chairman, we would spend that time on the second part of Order No. 2.(b), the resolution and Bill No. 11, the three hours. So we would like to call them, I think, in that order.

On motion, account centres 1.1.01 through 3.1.07 inclusive, carried.

On motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.

On motion, Consolidated Funds, total heads, carried.

On motion, Contingency Reserve Fund, total heads, carried.

On motion, account centres, carried.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report progress, a great deal of progress.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered the matters to it referred and has passed the account centres on Consolidated Fund Services, Executive Council and Continency Reserve passed without amendment and request leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Chairman of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee has considered the matters to it referred and has directed him to report they have passed the estimates for the Executive Council, the Consolidated Fund Services and the Continency Reserve Fund and asked leave to sit again.

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe too, by agreement, that we have agreed that bill No. 13, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act" could probably receive a fairly speedy passage and I now call bill No. 13.

On Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act" (Bill No. 13).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had to leave the Legislature, but I understand that he has had extensive conversations with the Opposition House Leader, who happens to be also the spokesman for the Opposition on municipal affairs in the Province. I understand this bill is actually fairly simple, in that it provides for a separate election for the deputy mayor for the city of St. John's. I think that is it's principal purpose and the bill would amend the act to allow councillors to elect from within the council either both a mayor and a deputy mayor in the event no person was nominated for one or both positions. I believe that it also ensures that during the term of office, if a vacancy occurs, there is a mechanism for putting a mayor or deputy mayor in place, I think that is all in the explanatory notes. Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

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

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

The Government House Leader has outlined the purpose of the bill. I have had discussions with both the minister, in the last few days, and I have also had discussions with some of the elected people in the city of St. John's.

The city of St. John's is a large municipality, the largest in the Province and they have had an act which have governed their elections for a long time. Some years ago they decided to elect their mayor by separate ballot. If they decide as a council that they want to have a separate ballot for the deputy mayor it is not used very much in other jurisdictions. I am not aware of very many other places across the country where there is a separate ballot for deputy mayor, but if that is the way they would wish to go then I don't think that we here should oppose it. It is something they should have within their realm, within their self-governance. I don't think it sets any precedent. If it doesn't work then we can certainly look to them and they will guide us if they want to change it back.

There are a couple of little items there. I do note that in section 12 there is a paragraph that particularly refers to the refund of the nomination fee. One suggestion I would have made to the minister is that the nomination fees for all people across the Province should be somewhat consistent. This one, I understand, is $50. Some municipalities have nomination fess of $100, but that is something we can do later on.

Mr. Speaker, because the City of St. John's Council has approved it, it has been in the public knowledge in the City of St. John's, we on this side would give it approval at this particular stage, and any comments we want to make we might do at second reading, or at committee stage.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a few remarks on the legislation to amend the City of St. John's Act and the municipal elections act.

I don't have any difficulty in principle with the bill. It seems that in the City of St. John's, at least, a position for deputy mayor has been kind of carved out probably by Andy Wells, but there are other people who have had the deputy mayor's job. John Crosbie was deputy mayor at one time, and went from there to the Cabinet - I think the Liberal Cabinet at that point - and then he joined the Tories.

If the City of St. John's wants to have a separate office, a separate election for deputy mayor, I don't see any real problem with it. There seems to be a succession clause there as well, in clause 6 of the bill, where the deputy mayor can become the mayor. So I think that is, as the Opposition House Leader says, a unique feature of St. John's politics, and if they are interested in having that, why should we stand in their way?

You mentioned the deposit fee of $100 in Mount Pearl and only $50 in St. John's. I am not sure if you upped it to $100, you would have anybody running for St. John's. It is a deterrent enough as it is, with the level of debate in city council, so I am not so sure we should interfere with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The culinary member from Port de Grave is acting up again. I don't want to engage him in direct debate at this hour of the night. He might want to speak on this bill and tell us all about the various kinds of recipes.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to say any more on that. There are a couple of minor issues on the wording, and some understanding of some of the issues that are here, but I am sure when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs (inaudible) the House, in committee, we can deal with those questions at committee stage.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that all of the great debating points that have been put forward by the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have been well received, and whatever needs to be done can probably be done in committee and I would move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 13)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move the adjournment of the House, I would just like to say to the Opposition House Leader and the NDP member that tomorrow is Private Members' Day and we will be debating the great bill put forward, the great resolution put forward, on the Cabot Celebrations by the Member for Topsail.

I would also like to say to them that on Thursday, in case I forget it tomorrow, I will give them a full listing of the legislation that we intend to bring to the House.

I would also ask them to note that there are three hours left before we get the supply bill passed, and I think there are four members left to speak on the Budget Debate. That is the maximum. If we could keep some people down it would save some time, but that is fair ball; if people want to speak, they have the right to speak.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.