March 24, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 3


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to announce today that my department has identified a successful bidder to provide marine services to Labrador. Burry's Marine Division Limited submitted the lowest bid, along with a sound business plan, in a competitive bidding process carried out in accordance with the Public Tender Act.

The contract is for a two-year period with an option to extend a third year. Burry's Marine Division Limited will manage and operate the vessels, The Sir Robert Bond and The Northern Ranger as well as the terminal in Lewisporte, where the new operator will be headquartered, and the terminal in Happy Valley, Goose Bay. The contractor will also be responsible for having a representative in each of the wharf ports along the Labrador Coast.

Mr. Speaker, we anticipate a significant cost savings by contracting the service to a private operator. The service will cost approximately $4 million less than has traditionally been the costs of operating the service in previous years. These savings will enable government to continue our efforts to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Not only will the marine service be more cost efficient, but there will also be significant improvements in service delivery. Among them, Mr. Speaker, are:

For the first time in five years, there will be no rate increases of any sort in tariffs or fares.

The minimum shipment rate will be broken down into two categories, this year, such that shipments less than 50 kg will cost $20 while shipments over 50 kg will remain at $35. Previously all packages under $50 were at the $35 rate.

The jockey charge for vehicles using The Sir Robert Bond will be reduced by $10.

For the first time, residents of Labrador will be able to make reservations on The Northern Ranger by calling a 1-800 number.

A 50 percent discount for community councils moving heavy equipment for use exclusively by the councils.

Consistency in shipping schedules whereby a freighter will be departing Lewisporte at least every 10 days.

The service will begin on schedule with The Sir Robert Bond making her first run from Lewisporte on June 9, ice permitting. The Northern Ranger will depart from St. Anthony on July 1, calling at all ports to Nain, again ice permitting.

I am very pleased to make this announcement today. Our next step, Mr. Speaker, will be to join with our new operator in visiting all ports of call to hear the views and concerns of Labradorians and to ensure the schedule sufficiently meets the needs of the area residents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House sat today.

With respect to this statement, it is good to see the minister is finally listening to the constructive criticism from this side of the House with respect to public tendering, and that this went through the proper tendering system, according to the statement.

It is good news for Lewisporte, in some respects, I suppose. The service will be headquartered in Lewisporte, and there will be jobs saved for rural Newfoundland, I would expect. I hope so, anyway. The minister talks about $4 million less it will cost the government to do the service, so in my mind that has to impact upon the services somewhere. It is not stated in this statement what impact it will have on the services, but it has to have some negative impact somewhere along the way, I would assume.

The minister talks about no increase in rates, but here in the statement he says that "shipments less than 50 kg will cost $20," which is something new, I would think. I do not know if that is an increase or not. It will have to be checked out, from my perspective.

One good note here, of course, is the 1-800 number for the people in Labrador, which is a positive step for those people.

He talks about consistency in shipping schedules. A ship will be leaving Lewisporte every ten days. Compared to what, I would ask the minister? Is there a ship leaving every nine days now, every five days? Really, I do not know. I cannot comment on it at this point in time.

Overall, if it is going to keep jobs in rural Newfoundland, if we do not lose all the jobs, it is a positive step, I suppose.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

The minister's statement of the privatization of the ferry service is another example of privatization which is going to hurt somebody. This government recently cried crocodile tears when the Goose Bay airbase was privatized at a loss of a couple of hundred jobs, plus serious downgrading of income for the remaining employees. That is probably where the money, the savings, is going to come from here. What the minister has said when he talks about the more efficient service is an admission that his own department is incapable of running an efficient service.

It is amazing how history repeats itself, Mr. Speaker. One hundred years ago the CN dockyard and the coastal service was run privately by the Reid Newfoundland Company. It eventually got taken over by the public, and is now being passed back into private hands. I guess we will have to take it over again, Mr. Speaker, if it runs into trouble.

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I would like to do this afternoon is to apologize to the Member for Conception Bay South, because my understanding is that his Ministerial Statement has not been delivered yet. It will be momentarily.

In recent days, sporting events have taken on a huge profile in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have just this past weekend drawn the curtain down on the 1998 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games, held in Labrador West. It was a wonderful experience and an enormous success.

I would like to thank all of the people who worked very hard to make the Games a reality - the organizers, the volunteers, the sponsors, the athletics, the coaches and families, and of course

our hosts in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, my department, along with the people of Western Newfoundland, now must focus on our next major sporting challenge -the 1999 Canada Winter Games - which will take place in the Corner Brook area eleven short months from now. All of Canada will be watching as we put our athletes to the test against the best our country has to offer. It is another great opportunity to show off what Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, my department is committed to the development of sport in this Province, whether through the preparation of venues for major sporting events, or competitive opportunities for our athletes, such as the Newfoundland and Labrador games.

In this regard, I was pleased to be able to close the 1998 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games with the announcement that we will call for bids for the next two games later this spring, underscoring our commitment to this wonderful event. Of course, those games will be the year 2000 Summer Games and the year 2002 Winter Games.

We realize the importance of supporting our athletes, and of playing an active role in recreation and sport in our Province.

The 1999 Canada Winter Games will be an incredible experience for our athletes. There will be a wide array of sporting events, including events for the physically challenged.

Wheelchair basketball, for instance, is an official event at the Games and this sport always draws an enthusiastic audience.

This Province has an impressive Wheelchair Sports Association, and I am pleased to recognize the association's head, Mr. Gary Power, who is in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I am certain that our continued support of this association will ensure that they thrive and represent us proudly.

In this regard, I am delighted to announce today that government has approved a grant of $88,000 for the Wheelchair Sports Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Not only will this grant ensure this association has the resources to compete in the 1999 Canada Winter Games, but it will help the association address many of its aspirations, from athletic wheelchair purchases to undertaking awareness programs.

I ask my colleagues to join me in offering best wishes to the Wheelchair Sports Association as they prepare to compete in this prestigious sporting event. The 1999 Canada Winter Games will be an excellent opportunity to promote wheelchair sports in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to be able to provide this assistance.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister; I did get a copy of your statement.

Minister, I certainly welcome the news on the $88,000. It is certainly good news. I am surprised that the minister announced that, and not the Premier. When there is any good news, the Premier usually does it.

I would as well today, Minister, like to congratulate the people of Labrador for hosting the Winter Games. I know firsthand of the amount of work and the time and energy that goes into it from the whole committee, the time and effort that they have to take. Sometimes it is not a week or two weeks of work; it can turn into a year or two years.

As well, to the committee in Corner Brook who are going probably even beyond what we do in Newfoundland and Labrador for our own games, the people of Corner Brook are going to be saddled with certainly a much larger responsibility, to host the Canada Winter Games.

I can only assume that with people like Mr. Trask, and people from the department who have been seconded to that division over there, who I have had the opportunity to work with over the years - and I am talking about Jamie Schwartz here - I think those games are in good hands. I am sure that when the time comes for Newfoundland and Labrador to put off a show, our show will be as good or better than anywhere else in this nation of ours. I have had the opportunity firsthand to attend some of these games and, knowing Mr. Trask and the rest of the people in Corner Brook, I am sure that our games will be just as good as anybody else's, and hopefully even a little bit better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the Member for Conception Bay South in congratulating the organizers, the athletes, the volunteers, and indeed all the people of Labrador, on a tremendous effort in putting on the Labrador Winter Games.

I was particularly impressed with the figure that I heard on TV last night of some 1,500 volunteers, which is a remarkable number of people to get involved in a volunteer effort in a community the size of Labrador West. It shows a terrific community spirit. I know that the Labrador Winter Games have provided a great deal of support for the community spirit that exists in all of Labrador, and I want to congratulate them on their effort.

I would also like to acknowledge my pleasure in seeing the contribution to the Wheelchair Sport Association in the pre-Budget announcement that the minister just made today, of $88,000.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I first want to apologize to the Member for St. John's South for the lateness of which he received a copy of my statement.

My hon. colleagues will recall that earlier this year, Friede Goldman International, a private sector company based in Pascagoula, Mississippi, acquired the assets of Marystown Shipyard Limited.

I am pleased to advise my hon. colleagues that employment levels at the new company, Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited, are continuing to climb, and currently stand at just over 850.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Unbelievable! What a minister! What a minister!

MS FOOTE: Employment at this time last year, Mr. Speaker, was just over 300.

MR. FITZGERALD: Who was the minister then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: The increase in work at the yard has resulted in a management decision to implement a third shift which took place on March 23, 1998.

This increased level of activity confirms that the decision to place the Marystown Shipyard Limited in the hands of a credible international operator was the right one, and is a testament to the skill levels and commitment of the workforce at Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited.

I am pleased also to inform the House today that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has reached an agreement with the employee groups at the former Marystown Shipyard Limited on the distribution of profit during the period April - September 1997, which will result in an amount of $433,333 that will be distributed among those employees.

Mr. Speaker, the work at the Shipyard has created spin-off activity around the Burin Peninsula and throughout the Province and we expect the benefits to continue well into the future. I congratulate all of the people at Friede Goldman Newfoundland - union, employees, management and owners - and wish them every success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like, as well, to join with the minister in congratulating the people at Friede Goldman, the union and employees, and to join with the government today in rejoicing with the people of Marystown, because this is a good news story for the people of Marystown.

The only down side to this is I guess they will have to throw away that steel plate. It is a better news story for the Premier, because they won't have to drop him into the ocean now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I spent yesterday going through the Auditor General's Report, and I am sure there are some ministers, as a result of what is in it, wish they could stand up today and probably have the ability and foresight to write what is in the report. Because it certainly doesn't indicate that the controls on the government purse strings, that controls on the provincial Treasury, are in place.

This is the second Auditor General's Report in two years. In last year's report and this year's report there are clear and consistent examples of where government has not managed properly the public purse; where government has not taken the initiative to follow up on deals that have been made; and where government on the one hand has entered into contracts for divestitures of Crown assets, but they forgot the ultimate test, and that is the strategic implementation and the results we get from it.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, is he concerned about what the Auditor General has outlined? Is he concerned about the lack of accountability? Is he concerned about the issues that have been raised in this report with respect to his government's record and control of the public finances?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we are always concerned and we welcome, in fact, the criticisms of the Auditor General. They are often succinct and to the point. I have to say they sometimes represent difference in opinions as to how matters should be accounted for, and with those we sometimes have some issues that we take.

Having said that, and I am sure the member has read the whole report, each government department and each Crown agency that is questioned provides a response to the Auditor General. While she raises concerns, sometimes they are addressed. When they are not addressed then we take measures to ensure that the Auditor General's comments were accurate, and providing better advice as to how we should proceed or implement, and that is something we look forward to doing each other.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, a very smooth delivery, a very eloquent answer to the question, but it didn't answer the question. The question is this: Why has government, in particular the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board in this case, not followed up to ensure, where public Crown agencies were sold, that the benefits, financial and otherwise, that were supposed to come to this Province, did not? Why didn't his department, or the departments associated with those areas in the Auditor General's Report, follow up to ensure that the benefits - again, financial and otherwise - came into the public Treasury? That is the question the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board must answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: My answer was, Mr. Speaker, that we have in fact followed up, and I would like the hon. member to be more specific. I would be quite delighted to speak to the Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited, if that is what he is tending toward, but I have not heard the question. It is not a question one can ask generally. If you have a question with respect to a specific entity we would be delighted to answer it, particularly if it relates to Computer Services Limited which I addressed in part with the press yesterday.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: No problem. I think what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has done, and obviously the record is pretty clear, is that he has made some basic assumptions with respect to the public Treasury that he should not have made, and I will give him one.

Last year's report, 1996, talks about Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited. Government divested itself of that agency in October of 1995, I believe. The Auditor General outlined in last year's report that the transaction was not completed, that the benefits and the finances supposed to come to the public Treasury were not completed. His department and the government were alerted last year.

This year, in this year's report, about fifteen months later, are the exact same criticisms of government, where Newfoundland Hardwoods did not, and the sale of it and the benefits supposedly coming from it have not accrued to the Province. The question is, why, Minister? Why has it taken at least two Auditor General reports to get you off your ministerial seat to do something about it for the people of the Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I refer the hon. member to page 145 of the Auditor General's Report, where it explains the very question that he raised and the response to it.

The problems with all of the proceeds from the privatization of Newfoundland Hardwoods - they have been realized, in fact. The only outstanding issue on that is the surplus funds from the wind-up of the pension plan which, as the hon. member can understand, will take some time. It has to follow a formalized process as required under the Pension Benefits Act. Issues related to the collection of certain receivables, the pension plan wind-up and the disposition of surplus storage tanks have taken much longer than anticipated to finalize.

If he wants to buy some surplus storage tanks at Newfoundland Hardwoods, we would be happy to oblige him. There is not a great market for those, as Your Honour can appreciate.

The financial statements will be available and following their receipt we anticipate that the services of the divestiture consultant, which was a clause of the transaction, will on longer be required. I understand that is the case.

So, do we follow up? Yes. Do we take specific steps? Yes. If the hon. member fully disclosed what was in the Auditor General's Report it would be seen that is in fact the case.

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

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

Let's look at another section of the Auditor General's Report. Yet again, throughout the Auditor General's Report, we have seen exceptions to the Public Tender Act, where a number of government's Crown agencies and entities, which are supposed to report public tender exemptions to the House, through the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, have not done so; and, in some cases, have not done so up until two years after those exemptions were made.

Can the public be assured, Minister, with that sort of activity, where government does not know what is happening with its Crown agencies and entities, that those exceptions are truly in the public interest?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you can be.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure we can be. If he reads the report and sees what the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation did, in one respect, that they pre-determined - there is no level of comfort provided to me with: Yes, we can be.

The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation: In the report it talks about a public tender exemption, that they pre-determined a site where they wanted to put one of their stores and then they wrote the tender specific to that site. The only thing that happened was they received one bid because only one bid would qualify.

Is that the type of assurance the minister is saying is in the best interest of the public?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes it is, Mr. Speaker. The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation operates on a commercial basis. It maintains -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation's mandate from government is to operate on a commercial basis. One of the things it does is choose its locations. The tendering question is for, I believe, the Churchill Park premises. It writes a tender to provide a certain amount of commercial space necessary to its operation in a reasonable commercial location. They would not do the same business if it were warehoused in some other part of town which is non-commercial. So it will necessarily be the fact that the Corporation's premises in virtually every place in the Province, including agency stores, are located for commercial purposes. They will not take locations simply on the basis of the cheapest square footage available, nor should they.

The Auditor General may say it is a departure from the Public Tender Act, which it is. Is it advisable in the Corporation's interests to earn money for government and taxpayers? Yes, it is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is the same sort of argument that we heard on Trans City, the three hospitals, that it was in the public interest; exactly the same argument, that it was in the public interest to do it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Millions of dollars later.

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Tender Act was set up for one purpose, to provide a level playing field. If - and this is a big if, I say to the minister - in the final analysis, that site had to be chosen as a result of commercial viability, fair enough, but at least it would have gone through the public tendering process. I am not convinced, and I don't believe the minister is either, that is the case.

Let's talk about the Department of Education. School boards in the Province paid out in excess of $160,000 in terms of termination of salaries for superintendents and assistant superintendents, in the face of the minister writing the school boards and telling them what the approved levels were.

Is there any explanation for that, I say to either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand from the news coverage last evening of the Leader of the Opposition's first day on the job, and how busy he is, now that he has become the leader he does not have time, only occasionally, to drop into caucus meetings after somebody else plans their strategy sessions and so on.

I expect as well, Mr. Speaker, that he probably missed all the news coverage certainly on the radio and otherwise, on several stations, where that issue was fully explained yesterday. I was pleasantly surprised, as the minister, that they used so much of the interview in the explanation, because usually there is a short clip taken of what was said; but there was a full explanation given with respect to the $160,000. I was so excited about it that today I went out and got a new haircut, and I am hoping that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get to his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am hoping that the questions will be of such a nature that I might get on the scum so other people can see me on the news tonight with my new hairdo and so on.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the $160,000 was explained to the Auditor General, and it was explained to the public of the Province yesterday. Those who were listening to the media heard it yesterday afternoon and this morning. Mr. Speaker, it is not as the Leader of the Opposition describes at all.

The $160,000 was paid out by the boards with the full authority of the legislation and the full authority of the government. The fact of the matter is that there is a difference of opinion between the Auditor General and the government as to whether or not, if she were in the position of Minister of Education, she would have given a certain authority to pay funds that were not salary funds.

What the school boards did, Mr. Speaker, was use an authority from the Minister of Education to pay - if they saw fit and if they deemed it as a priority - salaries above and beyond those approved by the Cabinet for those positions, from other funds that were provided to the school board for other purposes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: The boards, Mr. Speaker, debated the issue and agreed to pay slightly higher levels of remuneration to those positions.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no way. I heard the minister's explanation. I am glad to hear it again here today because there is no way. It only shows what the minister is made of. There is no way to justify that $160,000 being spent on termination, absolutely no way to justify it. How many more School Lunch Programs could have been purchased for that, Minister? If you can stand up and say in all honesty that you support that decision -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Seriously, how many more programs could have been provided for that $160,000, within the school system?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, one of us, obviously, myself or the Leader of the Opposition, is reading a very different section of the Auditor General's Report. The $160,000 - and I would ask the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition to read it and check again further and maybe go to some more briefing sessions and so on with his Caucus - is in no way a reference to termination benefits. That is a completely different issue in the report and a completely different amount of money. The $160,000 - and maybe he might read it, check with his Education critic, who is not here today, who has probably read it in detail, and he might stand up and admit that he just made a mistake in that the $160,000 that he is talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with termination benefits. It has to do with current salaries being paid to the current ten directors and the current thirty assistant directors in the ten new school boards.

Maybe I will give him an opportunity to check again and see that he has made a mistake. I know he is busy; I know he is new to the job; I know he does not have a lot of time like he used to before; I know he does not personally research the issues; but I think he can have a look and check and see that he did make a mistake.

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

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

The Auditor General, in her report yesterday, with respect to the St. John's Health Care Corporation, the report was a minor submission compared to what the Public Accounts Committee tabled some eight months ago.

I would like to ask the minister if she can clarify her statements yesterday with respect to that. Is she convinced that the savings that the Health Care Corporation and she, as minister, have indicated would be realized, will not be realized? In the Auditor General's Report it says specifically - clearly and categorically - that the financial analysis of the St. John's Health Care Corporation in the last three years by the Department of Health has been minimal to non-existent. Can the minister clarify her statements of yesterday?

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

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

I would like to say that I was a little bit disappointed that the Auditor General did not update her final report before she submitted it because back in August, as you will know, we submitted $20 million into the health care system which certainly changed the results to which she referred in her report, citing, for example, a $10 million deficit for the Health Care Corporation and a $6.8 million deficit for this year when, in fact, we injected $6.7 million into the Health Care Corporation this year; and that does not even preclude or include anything that may or may not be included in the upcoming Budget. I think that certainly is important to state because it is not reflected in the Auditor General's Report.

With respect to the savings, I think it is important to note that the $20 million that has been identified as savings will be seen over the long term. Surely my colleague across the way would acknowledge that the restructuring is not yet completed, and the full extent of that will not be completed until some time around the year 2000. The ongoing savings is on target and we have every confidence in the Health Care Corporation. They have done a fine job. They have brought together six major organizations and we are very proud of the work they are doing, particularly their staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health.

In 1993, the Minister of Health announced the reorganization of health care boards in this Province as a result of the Dobbin Report. At that time, as Health critic, I stated that we could support that reorganization if it improves the quality of health care and it improves the efficiency in the administration and delivery of health care services. The minister assured us that would happen. But today, Minister, our health care system is in worst shape than it ever was, and there is nothing but chaos in the management of our system today.

Now the Western Health Care Board recently had their accreditation survey suspended until administration there gets a better handle on operations. Now that board, Minister, has gone through four different CEO's in just over a year, three since you have been minister in the last ten months.

I ask the minister: Is she concerned that the suspension of that accreditation survey will put in jeopardy a teaching hospital like Western Memorial, and will make it even more difficult to be able to recruit because of this management fiasco?

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

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

First, I would like to respond to the preamble that the member spoke to at the beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, I have an opportunity to respond to the preamble, if I understand the speaker, previously.

In response to that preamble, I have to say that our health care system is not worse than ever. I have to say, if you speak to people who have availed of the services of our health care system at a time when they needed the services, prominent figures in our society, people who have gone to the Mainland and have had to come back here to have it done properly, you would have to agree that our health care system is not in chaos. It is delivering quality care. Our staff is working extremely hard, and I take offence to insinuations of anything other than that, as I am sure our staff would.

In response to the question, we have been working with the Health Care Corporation of the Western region to try to stabilize health services. In response to the question, there has been an acting CEO. We have been working very closely with the acting CEO, with my department, to put in place a management team. The new CEO started two weeks ago and he is in the final process of putting together the management team consisting of the chief operating officer and chief financial officer.

I do believe as well that the recent decision, as was reported in the media - similar to the comments made by my colleague, the Minister of Finance - was covered very clearly in the media recently. That has absolutely no impact on the teaching capacity of Western, or on the region, or on Port aux Basques, and on the community health centre model. In fact, if the member was to think about what he said, we have been through a year and a half of turnover with respect to financial officers, with respect to administration. Wouldn't it make sense to put a new management team in place, to allow the Atkinson report to be in place, before decisions are made in this direction? It is not in any way impacting on the operation of those facilities in that region.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Apparently the minister has not been consulting with the real people in the system, the people who are using the system. Maybe she should ask the Premier for a copy of his poll to let her know exactly people's concerns in health care in this Province.

Minister, you have been there almost one year and only now you are talking about putting in place a management team - after one year? They are your appointed boards and you, as minister, are responsible for the operation of those boards, and health care in this Province.

Your department hired a consultant - you just made reference to it, the Atkinson group - and they are supposed to do an operational review. The board chairman just recently, Mr. Bruce LeGrow - I heard him on radio when he was interviewed -, said there are identified management problems. He said he expects this report to confirm what he already knows.

I ask you, Minister: Why is your consultant's report that was due in July not ready? Could you tell us who is holding up that process?

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

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

We are waiting for the results of the Atkinson report for all the reasons to which I previously spoke. We have had difficulty getting the audited statements. We have publicly acknowledged, as has the CEO and the board chair, the difficulty in getting the financial information because of a manual system, because of a period where we went six months without a financial officer. We had other financial officers who came, went off due to various personal reasons. We now do have someone stabilized in that position and they have been working with the auditors to try to finalize.

The board received a draft audited statement two weeks ago. They are expecting last year's audited statement to be submitted in the next few weeks, and that will, in culmination with the Atkinson report, bring together the information the new management structure, as well as the board, will need to make the type of decisions you need to make when you do an operational review. It will not only look at the financial and administrative components. In an operational review you also have to look at the facilities, the services, and the types of services that are being offered in that area.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is presiding over a department in which a health care corporation hasn't submitted a financial statement since March 1995, Minister, and you are responsible. You are the one in charge, I say to you. Doctor Parsons is concerned, he said, in not having financial statements, and is having great difficulty in recruiting, even more difficulty than getting a financial statement, he stated publicly.

Accreditation promotes excellence in the provision of quality health care and efficient use of resources in health organizations. That is what the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation states. That is what reorganization, Minister, was supposed to do; that is what it was all about.

Your department has been delinquent in allowing the Western Health Care Corporation to operate without a full-time CEO for over a year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member he is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: In the process, I say to the minister, you have compromised efficient use of resources and health care to the people in Western Newfoundland. I want to ask the minister: When are you going to start doing the job you were appointed to do?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the member across for telling me what my responsibilities were, because up to this point I didn't know, right? I didn't know, and I want to thank you for telling me. Thank you so much.

I think it is only fair, in a health care system that will soon be over $1.2 billion, that nobody would ever fault us for doing ongoing evaluation. We are the first to admit we need to do better financial monitoring. We have admitted it. Last year we put in place a monitoring system; we have done internal audits, and we will be working very closely with our boards.

We believe that since the board has been put in place we felt a need to do an ongoing evaluation system to make the type of changes - and let me say, we haven't only done it in Western. We have done in Central and we have done it Eastern. We have also looked at it in St. John's. It is not unique to Western when you do ongoing evaluation and try to make decisions based on evidence and information that you have on a current basis.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we get the Ackinson Report, in conjunction with the new management team, this government will move forward to do types of things that it needs to do and we are very conscious and aware of what needs to be done. We take it very seriously and we compliment the people in the Western for their contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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, yesterday, we received a House of Commons Standing Committee report on the East Coast Fishery. This Committee was chaired, Mr. Speaker, by Mr. George Baker, the Liberal MP serving in Ottawa as a Member of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Baker has stated in the report, as well as in the news media many times, that if foreign fishing inside the 200-mile limit and on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank were stopped, there would be enough fish supplied to our own plants to have many of the people now on TAGS return to work. Minister, you have stated that this statement is not true. I ask the minister if he is accusing Mr. George Baker of lying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been around the House of Assembly since 1985, on the Opposition, and since 1989, on this side of The House of Assembly. I have heard and read, I will not say thousands of statements by Mr. Baker, in Ottawa, but I have certainly read and heard quite a number - hundreds of statements by Mr. Baker in Ottawa on Foreign overfishing, on fishery-related issues in Newfoundland and many other issues.

Some I agree with, some I do not agreed with. The one statement he made on foreign fishing allocation today, taking place on the Grand Banks, in particular inside the 200-mile limit, would replace the needs of all of the people who need to get back to work in the harvesting and in the fish plants in the Province. It is not true, Mr. Speaker, it is not correct. It could not. It would certainly help some but certainly would not replace the needs of all of those people who need to be put back to work.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Minister, if it helped one person, Minister, if it helped just one person get back to work, it would be something certainly worthwhile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, when you were an MHA, sitting in the back benches of this Legislature, you, too, introduced a private member's resolution into this House dealing with foreign fishing.

I will read one little part of that: How can you allow them to rob the fish outside and rake the fish inside the 200-mile limit -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and reward them by giving them quotas inside the 200-mile limit?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member he is on a supplementary and there should be no preambles, particulary there should be no

reading of excerpts from newspapers, extracts of any kind.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, those are your direct words and I must say I have many more here. I have the whole debate here which I will be bringing forward, Mr. Speaker, to show.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, why have you now wrapped yourself in the flag of convenience? Why have you wrapped yourself in the flag of convenience, Mr. Minister, and why are you not speaking out to the fish plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to put on his desk a copy of every question that I asked in The House of Assembly from 1985 to 1989 he would need one of Moffat Brothers tandem trucks to get them in here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: - on fisheries alone, Mr. Speaker - and I am going to tell the hon. member, much more direct than he is putting across The House of Assembly. When Minister Crosbie, Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, was in Ottawa, I said to the minister at the time that he should extend jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks of Canada to control all fishing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: And I have not changed my views on that to this day. I have also said that foreign fishing wherever possible, inside the 200-mile limit, should go to Canadians, where they have the ability to harvest, but do not make a misrepresentation to the people of this Province and say if the foreign fishing was stopped inside the 200-mile limit it would help 27,000 people - who are displaced because of the careless management of the former minister, John Crosbie!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

 

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

 

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the 1996-1997 annual report from the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A report from the Labour Relations Board - Newfoundland and Labrador 1997 annual report.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As per statutory requirement, I would like to present the annual report of the Pippy Park Commission for 1996-1997, and also I would like to present to the House reports of Public Tender Act exemptions for the months of November and December and the month of January, 1998, significantly within the time frame of six months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Petitions

 

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 800-plus people living in the community of Lethbridge. It reads:

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

WHEREAS the road through the community of Lethbridge has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately thirty years ago; and

WHEREAS the road is in such terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving the three schools in the area and schoolchildren are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the road through Lethbridge, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition. I say to the member opposite, I can name the other members who have been there for the last thirty years. This particular community has been in my district, Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, but that is beside the point, it is a road that was put through the community of Lethbridge where approximately 600 people live. The road was paved - not upgraded, just paved - back thirty years ago, about 1965-1966, and there has been very little, if any, road work done on this particular road since that, other than patching potholes and attending to emergency situations as they have arisen.

Mr. Speaker, this particular road is travelled over by five or six buses every day, buses taking students to the elementary school and to the high school. The road measures approximately five or six kilometres when you take into consideration the three approaches to Route 230 as well as the main road.

Mr. Speaker, what people are asking for, the 800-plus people who signed this petition, is to have this roadway recapped. They are not asking to have all the hills taken away or all the turns cut out. All they are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is to be provided with a decent road leading through their community. Those people, Mr. Speaker, pay the same price for gasoline, pay the same price to register their vehicles, the same price for their driver's license as everybody else in this Province.

We all know, with the weather conditions in this Province, that the life of a roadway, especially in rural areas, Mr. Speaker, close to the salt water, is probably a maximum of twenty to twenty-two years. This particular roadway has been paved over thirty years ago with very little work done on it since that time. Mr. Speaker, this needs to be done - the road needs to be done this year.

In one particular location of this road where the train track once went parallel to it, you drive down there today and you do not know if you are driving on the old railway bed or if you are driving on the roadway. There is absolutely no ditching done there. There has been absolutely no repairs. Even the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has been complaining about it. The minister knows what I am talking about, he was out there and drove over that road. I know that as well. Mr. Speaker, here again he only paid lip service to it; went out and made some promises, but there was never anything done about it.

Mr. Speaker, what those residents are asking for is nothing out of the ordinary. They are not coming looking for water and sewer, I say to the minister. They are not saying: We need street lights. They are not saying: We need a water supply. All they are asking for is to have their road ditched and recapped. I think that is all that needs to be done with that particular road.

They are concerned now that there is going to be some paving done by the Road for Rails agreement in the general area there, and they are saying this is an opportune time. If we are ever going to get a good price to get this piece of roadwork looked after, then maybe now is the time to do it.

I have received many, many calls, Mr. Speaker, both in the summer and in the winter, from people in the general area there complaining about the condition of this road. I relay the calls to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and I am told, Mr. Speaker, by those people, that this is one of their priorities as well, to see this particular roadway upgraded and recapped to an acceptable level.

Mr. Speaker, there is no point in it being a priority, there is no point in it being number one on the list, unless something is done to correct it. We are not asking the department to come out and pave and recap all the roads in the district. We are not asking them to come out and spend millions and millions of dollars. What we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is the maintenance of a road that has not been maintained for the past thirty years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister, if he would be kind enough to pay particular attention to this situation. I have made him aware of it in private conversation that I have had with him. So he is aware and we look forward to the budget being brought down and maybe this piece of roadway being recognized and the need being fulfilled this year.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise today to support the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South on behalf of his constituents in Lethbridge. Mr. Speaker, he is a very conscientious member, a hard working member who is always speaking up on behalf of the constituents in his district, unlike some other members here. For example, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture just a few minutes ago said to me that he had no problem going on record saying that the community of Port de Grave should be incorporated as a municipality. Mr. Speaker, he said that outright. I do not know what the people in that community feel, but I am not sure that they would support that, although there are all kinds of arguments that can be made one way or the other with respect to the incorporation of any municipality within the Province.

With respect to the community of Lethbridge wanting some work done on their roads out there this year, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has a responsibility to represent all the people in this Province, regardless of what district these people live in or what party representation they have in the House of Assembly. Government has the responsibility to represent all the people in this Province, and all the people in this Province should be treated equally.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture quite blatantly in the House of Assembly was being very biased, Mr. Speaker, with respect to making a comment when the Member for Bonavista South was up, saying: He is on the wrong side of the House. In other words, to get anything in this Province today you have to be a person living in a community represented by a member on the government side of the House. That is morally wrong, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, morally wrong. To not only think it, but to utter it is ridiculous.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to stand in my place today to support the petition, as the critic for Works, Services and Transportation, to see that the people in this Province are treated fairly, that every community in this Province is treated fairly, and that when the monies are allotted through the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that the concerns and needs of the people in each community are taken into consideration; before the monies are allotted.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might as well make a comment with respect to the roads in my district of Cape St. Francis. Mr. Speaker, I have been negotiating with every Minister of Works, Services and Transportation since I came here to try to get some money spent in the District of Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they all paved?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, all the roads in my district are not paved, and what roads are paved have been paved for thirty years, so it is time for some upgrading to be done, Mr. Speaker, in the District of Cape St. Francis.

Hopefully the minister will see fit this year to put some money into the district, long overdue. The scenic Marine Drive down through Logy Bay and Middle Cove and Outer Cove, the Outer Cove Road, that road down to Cape St. Francis, there are about five or six kilometres not paved. The scenic route where people come from all over the country, nationally and internationally, to visit Cape St. Francis, and they cannot get out there because the road is so bad, five kilometres of dirt road down there. The WindGap in Flatrock needs to be done. It is in dire condition. I have been talking to the minister and the deputy minister on that, and hopefully this year we will see some work done in that community.

Back to the original petition, presented by the Member for Bonavista South, that the minister hopefully will see fit this year to put some money into that area, as is requested by the people of Lethbridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments with respect to the petition that was presented by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South.

I might say to him that he would be more endearing to any minister if he recognized, even in his preamble, the level of support that his district has already gotten over the past few years with respect to road work. The fact of the matter is that last year we spent a fair bit of money down in that area on paving. The fact of the matter is that about a month ago we called a contract with seeds of $2 million under the federal-provincial program, the Roads for Rail program, being spent in his district. So the hon. member is receiving some attention in his district to the extent of $2 million on a contract that was called just the other day.

What I do want to point out, for the benefit of the House, not only the hon. member who raised the petition, is that I have in front of me at the moment in the department requests to do road work, outside of the Trans-Canada Highway, outside of the trunk roads agreement, that would cost us $200 million if we were to address all the needs this year. Those are the facts. We have roads that need to be resurfaced, we have roads that need to be recapped, and we have roads that have never been paved. I have to say to the hon. member that in identifying the programs for this year, one of the things I felt it was appropriate to consider was to consider roads in districts that have never seen a bit of blacktop, to consider roads that have never seen a bit of pavement, to consider roads over which people have driven for years and they have been eating dust all their lives.

I would ask the hon. member to bear that in mind when the allocations are done for this year, as they will be in short order, obviously. I would ask him also to understand that out of the rather small budget we have, compared to the $200 million needs that are out there, that we are attempting to spread the capital program money-wise around as fairly and as equitably as we can to ensure that people who do not have pavement get a bit of pavement, and also to ensure that where we have the worst deteriorating roads that we make our best efforts to bring them up to standard.

We will continue to apply the principle as best I can, in my judgement, that would recognize fairness and balance in the allocation of our roads resources for this year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from residents in the neighbourhood of St. Joseph's School to the House of Assembly, expressing the concerns about the proposed closing of the St. Joseph's School, and to demand that government take all measures to stop all school closures until the newly-elected board have had a full opportunity to consider the needs and circumstances of students and schools within their jurisdiction.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition is one of a number of petitions before the House concerning the issue of school closures this year. I think I can tell the House a few things that were presented to the school board itself last night by the local school council.

This is the second time that a presentation has been made to the Avalon East School Board by the school council. They made one last year and this was prior to the referendum, Mr. Speaker, that was passed in September of last year. At that time the issue as to what schools might be designated as denominational schools, uni-denominational schools or interdenominational schools was before that board. What the parents, through their school council, told the board - and they did that as a Catholic school and for the most part Catholic parents of a Catholic school - they made a presentation which said they believed that their school ought to remain open because it was a neighbourhood school; that it met the expectations of the government, parents and the community and those who supported reform of the education process in this Province. It met the criteria for a neighbourhood school, a school that was responding to the needs of the neighbourhood.

They wanted it to be available to all children in the neighbourhood. In fact, over the years the school population of St. Joseph's has been in fact not uni-denominational, although it was a Catholic school, children from all denominations attended that school. It was a school that responded and does respond to the needs of the children of that neighbourhood, the special needs of the children of that neighbourhood, in relation to the development of a School Lunch Program which has a 100 per cent take-up rate or approximately 100 per cent take-up rate, which is very important to the those students.

It is a school, Mr. Speaker, I have heard parents say at school council meetings and at public meetings to discuss the school, that recognizes that many children in that area are not able to keep up with the latest requirements of schoolchildren in terms of the fanciest and most expensive sneakers. Some of the heavily advertised brands of sneakers that are made, in many cases, in Third World countries cheaply and sold in North America very expensively - children want to have those. There is a lot of pressure on children to have them. Well that pressure does not exist in St. Joseph's School, Mr. Speaker, and that is very important to the self-esteem of those children, many of whom cannot afford to have it.

Mr. Speaker, a number of students from this school have written letters. I will just read out one of them from a student named April Blackwood, who is in a Grade 5 class. She says: My name is April Blackwood. I am in Grade 5 at St. Joseph's School. I have a lot of friends here I have known since Kindergarten and I do not want to be separated from them. Our school is small. We do a lot of activities and everyone gets a turn to be involved. Some people say our school is not in good condition. It is not true. We have a huge gym. It is in good condition. Our school is clean and bright. We have a computer lab, science lab, resource centre and a lot of equipment and resources. It has a lot of tradition. We go to the most historic neighbourhood in all of North America.

Mr. Speaker, that school is a stone's throw, literally, from Signal Hill. These children walk to the Battery and walk to Signal Hill for public events and historic events. They are able to walk to the museum, where they have gone on many occasions for field trips. They do not have to go hire buses, Mr. Speaker. In other words, this school is ideally located, not only for the students themselves, many of whom can walk to school, but also for the school itself in having access to the historic parts of downtown St. John's and to Signal Hill. They use the Battery pool almost as if it were their own school swimming pool. There are many advantages to that school for the children who go there, Mr. Speaker, and it is a school -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - a neighbourhood school which should be saved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to present a petition this afternoon from parents, many of whom live in the district of St. John's East, but whose children are under the jurisdiction of the Avalon East School District. I would like to read just a portion of it: We, the parents and friends of schools in the Avalon East School District, assembled at Confederation Building on Sunday, March 22, 1998, request the provincial government to assess, with respect to the reduction of teaching units, its position for the school year of 1998-1999.

The petition goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: We stress that we are not opposed to school closures and changes in school configuration. In the context of declining enrolment and the implementation of neighbourhood schools, such changes must and will come.

These parents, Mr. Speaker, realize that we are going through a period of transition and they realize that school closure is something that not only this school board but indeed many school boards in the Province will have to deal with. This is an issue which, of course, will have to be addressed seriously by all ten school boards. However, what the parents in Avalon East are asking is that a proper assessment be carried out and that this information be made available to the now duly elected school board members, Mr. Speaker.

The parents who have been speaking out, who have been demonstrating and protesting in one form or another, and in addition to that who have been meeting in public meetings in their various schools - as recently as last night and again this evening, I am told, and again tomorrow night, school councils will be making their concerns and representations known to the various members of the Avalon East School Board. There are a variety of ways that parents have come forward, but their message has been the same. That message, Mr. Speaker, is that the board ensure, that the board members, that staff ensure, that all members have up-to-date information, that the assessments and the reviews which are being carried out are all-inclusive, that they take into account all data with respect to programs, curriculum at large, the facility itself, the number of teachers, the number of schoolchildren, the proposed enrolment and future enrolment for Septembers to come. All of these issues have to be taken into account, Mr. Speaker.

It is most important that the parents of the various schools within the jurisdiction of the Avalon East School District have confidence in the decisions which are being made. Because what I am hearing, Mr. Speaker, is that in some cases these studies have been done well in advance, that these decisions have been made well in advance to the actual timing of the election of the new school board. These now school board members are confronted with information and decisions that they have to make and they have had no real direct impact, as to how these decisions ought to be made. It is a confidence issue, Mr. Speaker, it is a credibility issue.

I would like to just again read one part of this petition where it states: We are convinced that changes should only be made on the basis of a comprehensive plan that has been thoroughly developed, vetted by extensive consultation with parent groups and schools concerned, and implemented with sensitivity to the children and families that will be affected.

That is all these parents are asking. There is no blanket statement, Mr. Speaker, with respect to: We oppose this or we oppose that. They just want fairness. They want to ensure that the decisions that are put in place at the end of the day are done after a proper assessment, appraisal and review of all of the information, so that any parent of any school can feel that they have been treated with fairness and with equity. They ask nothing more, Mr. Speaker, and nothing less.

Thank you very much.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the remarks of my colleague, the Member for St. John's East.

Here we have a group of parents asking this government to take their petition into consideration. They are concerned for the future of their children. Some of these children, Mr. Speaker, have already been disrupted. The ones that come to mind are the children at St. Bon's, some of whom were pupils at Presentation. That closed and they went to St. Bon's and now there is talk that St. Bon's is going to close and these children stand to be disrupted once more. How much more of this will go on with the closing of schools? How many more times in the school lives of these children will they be disrupted?

These parents are asking this government not to say there will be no reduction in teachers. They know with a declining enrolment there must be a reduction in teachers. They are not asking this government to say that there will be no school closures. They know with a declining enrolment that there must be school closures.

What they are asking this government to do is ensure there is a plan in place that will take into consideration all the issues and the impact that such closure will have on the children and the families who will be affected.

Yesterday, here in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Education, the minister who is ultimately responsible for schools, for the organizing of schools, for the closing of schools if they need to be closed and the consolidation of schools if they need to be consolidated, said, and I quote, "...the responsibility of organizing schools, closing schools if they need to be, consolidating schools, [is] in the hands of the school boards." I shall call him `Minister Pontius Grimes,' for his statement reminds me of that of another leader who 2,000 years ago washed his hands of a situation he did not want to be blamed for.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I am here, standing, I would like to present a petition against Sunday shopping.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: This government will undoubtedly recall -

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

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to present a petition against Sunday shopping. This government will recall the bill to amend the Shops' Closing Act, when for several days in December the members of this Opposition brought the views and the pleas of the residents of this Province to the government against Sunday shopping.

This bill was opposed by parents, single parents, and families, and consumers, many of the families who are involved in the retail sector. They asked this government, who proposed it would consult with its people, to listen to them, and the government invoked closure. These are the people who were not consulted, and they tried to be heard via this Opposition. They were denied. The government had introduced this bill on two previous occasions, in December 1995, for whatever their reasons, and in May 1997 to deflect when they were performing so poorly on health care and school reform. Both times the bill died on the Order Paper.

This time, against the wishes of the people, and without hearing them, this government forced passage of this bill, a bill that has seen the erosion of family life, a bill that was presumably passed because it was too difficult to enforce no shopping on Sundays. I can think of many other laws that are hard to enforce. Take, for instance, speeding down a highway where there are no policemen patrolling, or smoking marijuana among young people. Both these laws are hard to enforce. I do not see the government lifting those laws.

The government said when they passed this Act that nobody would be forced by government to be open, and they are not forced by government to be open. They are forced by the competition. Since the inception of Sunday shopping I have been following it closely, and the grocers - Sobeys, Dominion, and the other large grocers who remain closed - now are forced to buy into Sunday shopping. I have to say, since this bill was put on the Order Paper I have had more calls on this subject even than on school reform. I have been asked if this law was passed for convenience, why is Motor Registration not open on Sunday? Why are the liquor stores not open on Sunday?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Probably they should, but do it. Open Motor Registration for the convenience of people. That is open now thirty-five hours a week, and the stores are open in excess of seventy-two hours a week.

I have had letters from people telling of the disruption of their lives. This government has thrown a monkey wrench into the lives of retail workers. People are unable to attend church, and they are unable to have Sunday dinner with their families. They have asked me about such things as Victoria Day, the long weekend, Labour Day, Easter Sunday; what is to happen then?

The most touching thing of all that I have received is from a little ten-year-old girl who made a project for school. She says: The person behind the counter is real. Put faces on these people because two of my parents are behind that counter. Put a face on the person who is selling you the washer or TV. It seems some people think the person behind the counter has no life; they are there to serve. I beg to differ. These people do have lives, and they are not just there to serve. Please do not shop on Sunday.

She shows a mother behind the counter, thinking of church. She has barbecues there, and she is thinking of spending Sunday with her children. She has drawn that, and illustrated very graphically. In the bubble there it says: I wish I could go home to my family.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am happy to stand and second this petition by my hon. colleague from St. John's West. We spent many hours debating the Sunday shopping issue here in the House before government finally invoked closure and forced us to vote on it. And the vote on Sunday shopping was quite obvious; it was twelve on this side to thirty- six on that side.

It wasn't only the people on the Opposition side of the House who were against Sunday shopping. The retailer workers themselves, their families, many of the clergy throughout the Province, were against the issue of Sunday shopping. Yet, government invoked closure in any event.

It is the families that are most affected, the retailer workers and the families of the retailer workers who are most affected by Sunday shopping. The children, especially those who have two parents working in the retail sector, are the real people here who suffer. The children of the families of single parents who work in the retail sector are the people who are suffering as a result of Sunday shopping. In families where there is a single parent and a number of children, that parent is forced to work on Sunday and forced to subsidize the babysitting costs and so on. When the children, during the week days, are in school, that is not a factor. It is the entire family that will suffer, Mr. Speaker.

The small retail outlets are going to be jeopardized here because the larger retail outlets who buy on mass quantity can outsell at a lower price the smaller retail outlets even in the malls; the smaller outlets that now have to bear the cost of extra overhead, extra wages, and extra utilities to keep the lights on, the registers working, and so on.

While this will create more employment in the short term by having people work on Sunday, it may work to the disadvantage of the people who are working in the retail trade in the smaller shops, because those people may eventually be laid off as a result of less profits, or the same profits spread over seven days, and those smaller outlets unable to compete with the larger outlets.

The corner-store owners in most of our neighbourhoods are the people who are going to suffer, because now the supermarkets which had no intention of opening on Sundays were forced to open because of the competition. The small corner stores may become a thing of the past, putting people out of work.

Mr. Speaker, most of the larger stores themselves did not want to open on Sundays. We can name a vast number of those stores. Canadian Tire, Sears, and even Wal-Mart, voiced their objection to opening on Sundays. Yet, they had to open on Sunday because of competition. If one store opened, they all had to open. Canadian Tire boycotted Sunday shopping for almost a month, but because of their competition being open they had to open.

Mr. Speaker, we still have no idea why Sunday shopping was implemented. The families of the retail workers, the retail workers themselves, the owners of the small retail outlets, the corner-store owners, are still asking that question and it has not been answered. It has not been answered, and we can see why it has not been answered. I can look across this House today at what seats are not vacant on the other side. The rest of the people sitting in their chairs are not even paying attention. This is why that question has not been answered.

This government has become complacent. They are no longer listening to the people. They have their own mandate. They are going to do what they want to do without lending an ear to the retail workers, without lending an ear to the anglers on rivers that are being dammed or privatized, without lending an ear to a number of concerns in this Province. It is that complacency, Mr. Speaker, that hopefully the retail workers and the rest of the population in this Province will remember when that government tries to pull a fast one on the Lower Churchill deal by calling an election on that issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. DICKS: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1.

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 Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak to Bill 2, Interim Supply.

I notice, in looking through Bill 2, that under Industry, Trade and Technology there is $6,612,800 allotted. I hope that some of that money will be invested in trying to find ways to help local manufacturers, local industry and local businesses, to better themselves, to do business in this Province, and to compete on an equal ground with the businesses in other provinces. It is an issue that I have raised in the last session here in the House, and it is an issue that I will continue to raise.

Mr. Chairman, I have gone throughout the Province and consulted with local manufacturers, and in the very near future we are going to present the results of our recommendations to government on what we have heard through our consultation process. We will be happy to do that, and we hope that our recommendations will be taken seriously by not only the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and indeed the Premier because, when it boils down to it, the out-migration in this Province, the lack of employment in this Province, a lot of that has to do with the fact that we are sending our raw resources out of this Province as raw resources, when we can be doing the secondary processing here.

We are allowing our local manufacturers and producers to fend for themselves, to compete with Mainland companies. We are talking about lowering the international trade barriers, and probably doing away with the provincial preference policy, which will take away some of the advantage of the local manufacturers here. Hopefully some of that money in Bill 2 allotted to industry will go for finding more ways of helping our local manufacturers and producers.

In a book I have just obtained from the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Fact Book of 1997, it states:

"The economy of Newfoundland and Labrador has traditionally been dependent on resource-based industries, especially the fishery... Applying innovative technologies to solve problems, thinking locally, and acting globally are three characteristics of the new economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador."

That is a key phrase there, `thinking locally'. That is something this government has not been doing, and it has been proven time and time again. The Opposition has been successful in lobbying to have some local products put into our own cafeteria, after years of bringing it up in the House, myself and the Industry critic before me. I remember reading in Hansard - he brought it up as well - the fact that there were not local products being served in our cafeterias when they are available. We were successful in lobbying to get some of them put in, and we are going to continue to do that.

Mr. Chairman, after the Throne Speech, out in the lobby - and I brought this up yesterday during Question Period -, the government hosted a reception in the lobby. They served a beverage product that was manufactured on the Mainland. That is a slap in the face to the local manufacturer of that product, because after we lobbied to have that product put into the cafeteria here, and it is now available to the caterers at our cafeterias in both buildings, it could have been requested if government wanted to think locally, but it obviously wasn't requested. It was left up to the discretion of the caterer.

Unfortunately, I guess, because they have been dealing with that product that has been brought in from the Mainland for so long, or maybe it was closest in the stockroom, God knows, but they chose the product that is imported from Ontario as opposed to using our local product. That shows that while government themselves are now doing a consultation process throughout the Province and trying to find ways to use local products and promote local products, and help local manufacturers, that they completely turned a blind eye to the fact that that local product is now available right here in our building and they used a product... Whether it was government's fault directly or not, indirectly it is government's fault that an imported product was used over a local product.

I am familiar with both products. Sobeys stores are now using the local product as their own brand, Our Best. They are selling it in all of their stores they have in Canada as their own product, which shows that it is a quality product, it is available here, yet it wasn't used. So while this books preaches they are going to think locally, or they are thinking locally, I would beg to differ. I would say this government is not thinking locally. They had a choice. They had a product available right here at their fingertips and chose not to use it, chose to use an imported product instead.

How many jobs does that create on the Mainland? How many jobs could it create here? That is a good question. That is also outlined in this booklet. Government was very careful to lay out the facts here and to inform us of how many jobs that would create on the Mainland. Interprovincial Trade at a Glance: "Newfoundland and Labrador had a trade deficit of $2.7 billion with the rest of Canada." For the lay person who does not know, a trade deficit means that we are bringing in, in imports, $2.7 billion more than we are exporting with the rest of Canada. $1.5 billion of that is with Ontario.

The next line in this book is the most shocking of all: "Trade between Newfoundland and Ontario accounted for 4,000 jobs in Newfoundland and 25,000 in Ontario."

One would have to ask, what is government doing here by continuing and insisting on dealing with Ontario products? Are they trying to give all of the Newfoundlanders who moved to Ontario jobs? Because they are certainly not trying to give jobs to the Newfoundlanders who are thinking about moving out of Newfoundland, or they would be dealing with products right here in Newfoundland. They would be purchasing our own products, helping our own manufacturers, promoting Newfoundland manufacturers; but quite evidently that is not happening.

A very simple thing like having juice available, served by government, at a government reception, they would have taken the Newfoundland-produced juice which is available to them. Not only is it available in the Province; it is now handled by the caterer in this building.

Mr. Chairman, they go on to say that Newfoundland and Labrador has a trade surplus of over $650 million with the rest of the world. Again, that means that we are sending out $650 million more in products than we are taking in with the rest of the world. Yet, with Canada, we insist on bringing more of their product in than we are sending out.

Mr. Chairman, 75 per cent of Newfoundland's exports go to international markets as opposed to Canadian markets - to international markets. Only 25 per cent of our exports go to other provinces in Canada; 75 per cent of our exports go to other countries. Yet the same number, over two-thirds -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Over two-thirds of the imports brought into Newfoundland come from within Canada. So it ironic that 75 per cent of our exports go to other countries, that Canada does not have the same commitment in buying our product that we have in buying theirs, but we purchase almost the same amount. Almost 70 per cent of our imports come from Canada.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a key supplier of raw materials used in manufacturing operations in Central Canada, and they give an example such as minerals, iron ore pellets, and so on. Mr. Chairman, what that is telling me is that of the exports that are going out of Newfoundland, that are bought within Canada - the meagre 25 per cent that is bought within Canada - of those exports, most of it is raw material. Now if we are sending out raw material and the majority of that is going to Central Canada, and that raw material is creating 25,000 jobs in Ontario alone, one would have to ask, why are we not doing the secondary processing on our raw materials right here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Yet, the Province insists on examining water proposals on Gisborne Lake, on sending water out as a raw resource, something that does not take a whole lot of industry to run it through a filter and put it into a bottle and stick a label on it. Yet, we are probably going to create another 10,000 or 15,000 jobs over the next decade or two by sending our water out as a raw resource, by sending our copper out as a raw resource, and God only knows what else.

So, Mr. Chairman, the money that is put aside within Industry, Trade and Technology, I don't know yet. We have not received the estimates because the Budget has not been brought down, but I would certainly hope that a portion of that - at least a portion of that - will go towards finding out ways we can produce our own raw materials here, do the secondary processing.

It certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out that if we are going to send water out as a raw resource, that if there is a market for bottled water in the global economy, we can do the secondary processing on our water here. Put it into a bottle, put a label on it, stick it in a box, and send it out as a secondary product, and get far more money for it and create jobs here. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that concept; yet, government continues to look at those proposals to allow water to be exported as a raw resource.

I remember, during questions I brought up in the last session regarding the same issue in the House, the Premier obliged by responding and agreeing with me, and challenging me to go out and try to find some of the answers. In his response he pointed out Quebec as an example, and said that Quebec is one of the major obstacles; they will sell us their products but they will not buy ours.

Contrary to that belief, not quite half but almost half of what we sent out of here to Quebec... We took in $940,240,000 worth of imports from Quebec, and we sent into Quebec, as exports, $382,774,000 worth of products. Again, unfortunately, a lot of that was raw material.

The point is that somewhere between one-third and one-half of what we imported from Quebec we also exported to Quebec. The dismal figures here are in Ontario. We brought in $1.8 billion worth of products from Ontario, yet we only sent into Ontario $258 million worth of products; again, most of that in raw resources. So you have $1.8 billion worth of product coming to Newfoundland from Ontario, and only $258 million worth of products going into Ontario.

Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong when we can send our raw resources to Ontario and they can create 25,000 jobs because of our resources going there, and we are in such desperate need of employment here in this Province. Yet we continue to send out our raw resources and allow Ontario to reap the benefits, not only from employment but the secondary processing and creating a profit on our raw resource.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and allow somebody else the opportunity to speak. Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to say a few words on Bill 2, interim funding.

I can tell the Minister of Education where he can get $500,000 of that money very fast. It is right from the gentleman's house that brought it here (inaudible). That is the first move I would make if I was going to be looking for funding, or looking to save money and get extra dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government House?

MR. FITZGERALD: Government House. That is where I would get my first $500,000 in trying to solve some of the problems with the Budget. I can tell you a lot of different ways that we could spend money, that would be much more beneficial to the taxpayers of this Province than spending $500,000 to hire four or five people to look after the big house down there on Military Road.

It was only the other day I was talking to somebody who worked down at Government House. They were telling me how they worked there during the summer as a student, and whenever there was a function on the go they were hid away. They were told to go into a building and hide away. They were not allowed to be seen. They were plebs right here in this Province, in their own Province. They had to go and hide away. When anything official was on the go at Government House, you were to go into this building and shut the door, and not come out until the function was over.

That is what happened, Mr. Chairman, and it is something that we should seriously look at. No disrespect for the Lieutenant-Governor - he is a fine man - but I do not think we should have to put our Lieutenant-Governors, if we need them, up in a house paid for by the taxpayers of this Province.

When you look at what is being done in Alberta, you look at what is being done in Ontario, provinces which are far, far richer than ours, that expect their Lieutenant-Governor to live in his own house, and provide him with an office - right here at Confederation Building. What is so wrong with that? What is so wrong with the Lieutenant-Governor coming here and occupying offices the same as we people do - elected members, Cabinet ministers? What is wrong with that? What is degrading about that?

I think if were looking for a place to establish an archives or a new art gallery, maybe that is place we should start looking instead of trying to build other places.

Mr. Chairman, out in my District of Bonavista South today I would venture to say there has never been a time before when so many people have been unemployed. I would venture to say there is not 30 per cent of the people in the district working; there is not 30 per cent of the people gainfully employed.

We had a job creation project a few months ago which helped. I give the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs credit; it did help. We qualified a fair number of people, not a lot but a fair number, probably 40 or 50 people that we could help in making the transition from the Department of Social Services, from Government hand-outs to a job.

As temporary as it was, it gave those people self-esteem. It built on their self-esteem. It gave them a good feeling about themselves, to be able get up in the morning and go out and access a job and get a pay cheque, and be able to go and... I know it is another form of government funding, it is probably another handout, but it is something people pay into and they feel a little better when they qualify to receive it, and that is EI, rather than going to the Department of Social Services.

It is certainly not the end-all but it was a help, and I am glad that the minister recognized that need in rural Newfoundland and responded to it. Even though a lot of people were disappointed, it helped a lot of people as well, and we should continue to do that and help those who are less fortunate.

Mr. Chairman, in the Catalina - Port Union area of my district there have been something like 54 or 55 businesses that have closed their doors this past four years, unable to carry on. I went into a business last Friday night on my way up from Bonavista. I stopped at a business in Port Union. The Port Union - Catalina fire department were having a TV auction. They go out and raise money to help buy a length of hose, or to help buy a pump, or to help buy some breathing apparatus, whatever it is they need in order to carry out their duties; one of the best groups of volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I went into this business and said, I think what I will do is donate some gasoline for them to have a draw on. That way I can spend a few dollars in the district and the people who win the prize will be able to go the local gas station and make the purchase.

There are three gasoline stations there, and I went into one and asked if I could get a gift certificate for $25 worth of gas; not a problem. I paid it, and I moved up to the next one. I asked if I could do the same thing; not a problem. When I went into the third one, I asked if I could purchase $25 worth of gas in order to be used for the TV auction which was going to happen probably three weeks down the road. The owner of the business looked at me and he looked down at his desk, and he looked up again and he looked down. He said, "No, I can't do it." I said, "What do you mean? Is my money no good here?" He said, "No, it is not that. I have been in business since 1967, and my doors are closing at six o'clock this afternoon." Another business gone!

MR. J. BYRNE: Why?

MR. FITZGERALD: It has to do with the economic situation in that particular area since the fish plants have closed and the fishermen have stopped fishing. Mr. Chairman, another business went out of business.

MS S. OSBORNE: That sounds like a better tomorrow!

MR. FITZGERALD: That sounds like a better tomorrow! I tell you, it is not a better tomorrow for this gentleman, in business since 1967, didn't know another occupation. He said: I don't know what I am going to do. I don't know where life is going to take me, but I know that I am not coming back here tomorrow morning. That is what is happening out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, Mr. Chairman.

When I hear the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture get up and say that foreign fishing is not a problem, saying that Mr. Baker and the Standing Report of the House of Commons were wrong... We can't get all our fish plants open if we take away the fish that foreigners are catching.

I say to the minister, and I say to people opposite: If we could get twenty people back to work, if we could get ten people, one person, by taking this fish from foreigners, then let's do it; because one job, every job, is very important in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, very important.

We may not get all our fish plants open, we may not get all our restaurants open, and our gas stations, but I will tell you what: the one job that we save is one person who will be going to the local grocery store, one person who will be purchasing gasoline, and somebody else who will be paying taxes, and somebody else, hopefully, who will be contributing to the economy of this Province.

When you see the young people leaving this Province today, our brightest, our youngest, our future, leaving this Province today and having to go to Alberta and British Columbia, and many times out of the country altogether, in order to access a job, I fear what is going to happen to our rural communities.

I have been struck with it. I have not been any different from somebody else. My daughter graduated from university the middle of December, and on December 26 she was on a plane. On Boxing Day I took my daughter into Gander to catch a plane to go to Northern Alberta to go to work on a native reservation. I am just one of the many. So don't think, because we are alright here ourselves, our families are not being affected as well. It is happening. It is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today in greater numbers than it has ever happened before.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I won't abuse leave. I will just take a moment to clue up.

This is what is happening to our young people. I said it here before. One time when you would go to a funeral or when you would go to a wedding, it was a prime place where you would get a touch of reality as to what is happening. One time when you would go to those functions you would get air messages being read out, and the messages would come from the work centres of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be Buchans and Millertown, St. John's and Corner Brook. Now you go, Mr. Chairman, and the messages are coming from Korea, they are coming from Japan, they are coming from Fort McMurray, they are coming from British Columbia, all over the world. That is what we are being faced with here.

It is nothing new, as I said before, for Newfoundlanders to have to leave this Province in order to get a job. I have done it myself. It was almost like part of growing up. If you were a Newfoundlander, you had to go to Toronto or you were not mature. I would venture to say that there is probably not one person in this Legislature today who has not made the pilgrimage to Toronto to look for work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I say to the minister, he probably has. I am sure that he has.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You haven't? You were fortunate, I say. I spent nine years there. I spent nine years, and every day I was there I wanted to come home. It is not where I wanted to be, and I don't think I am much different than anyone else. But in those days, for the most part, people went because they wanted to go. They went with the intentions of coming home. It was a situation where you went in order to get a few dollars together to go and pursue a higher education, or else you wanted to come back and build a house, or else you just wanted the adventure of going away.

That has been going on in this Province for years. First it was Boston and then it was Toronto. Now it is Alberta, British Columbia and on, but the reasons for going now have changed. The reason for going now is that the younger people, the educated people, the people who normally would be able to stay here in this Province and access a job, provide an opportunity, now are going because they do not have a choice. They don't have a choice to same home or go away. They have to go now, and I fear many of them are not coming back. I fear that many of our young people now, once they go, are not coming back; because they are leaving knowing there is no opportunity here in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in this Province today expects government to be magicians, to work magic and create economic wealth, to employ everybody overnight, but they do expect government to go out and listen and consult and respond to a need.

If you have a problem in health care, go out and talk to the front-line workers. If you have a problem in education, go out and talk to the educators. If you have a problem with industry, mines, and technology, go out and talk to the players. Don't go up in your own office here, don't go up in your ivory tower and sit and make decisions and say: Here is the way it is and you must live by it because we say it is right. Because it is not right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure you agree. You have a bit of common sense, I say to the minister.

It was only yesterday I had a call from my district, from one of the employees down there who works with the health care facility, and they did away with a job in the maintenance department. The gentleman called me and said: Look, the savings here, from what we are told, is $20,000. We can tell government how to save $20,000 and still maintain that job.

But nobody asked him. Nobody came and said: Look, this is what we have to save. This is the shortfall this year, and we want you to work with us and help us keep our costs down, to help us live within our budget, so let's work together at that. Nobody explained to them that this job - and the reason for saving the money is going to be as beneficial to him as it is to the person who is going there to try to balance the books.

That doesn't be done. Even though this fellow said he could show the government where to save $20,000, he was not asked. Nobody said: Well, come forward and let's talk. We invite you in to share your opinion, to share your concerns and show us how we can save this money. It is not done.

We say we are out today actively trying to seek industry to move into rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are saying that we would like to promote tourism, but still we never go the extra step in trying to bring our tourists here and make them leave with a good impression. We do not go the extra step in saying that in order to have a tourist industry we must have good roads.

We are saying we want to close schools; part of the school reform is closing schools. We are going to bus people from point A to point B. If you are going to close schools, and if you are going to be busing people, and if you believe in school reform, and if you believe in challenging the students, and if you believe in having them being able to compete with the best in urban areas and in other provinces, it goes much, much farther than the church involvement, I say to people opposite. It goes much, much further than the curriculum offered, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Chairman, we have to look at the overall picture. We have to make sure, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to bring about school reform, that we offer our schools an equal opportunity as they do in urban areas and as they do in other provinces in this country.

Mr. Chairman, with those few words, I will sit down and refer debate to another member here, I guess, on this side of the House.

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

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

Again today, I rise in my place to say a few words with respect to this Interim Supply bill, Bill 2 as it is referred to, Mr. Chairman.

The government is asking this House of Assembly basically to have confidence in this Administration to allow them to spend $1,010,089,200 in the next few months, without any restrictions, I would imagine - I suppose I could say that, Mr. Chairman; over a billion dollars in the next few months, when only yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Auditor General's report came down and she had a lot of concerns with respect to the running of this Administration; the spending of the taxpayers' dollars in the past year.

As a matter of fact, she went back a couple of years with respect to certain issues and the amounts of money that are being spent and certain deals that were made with this Administration to privatize certain corporations that had normally been run by the government, and made money and presented money to the coffers of this Administration, to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had them privatized, and this Administration really does not know what is happening or what is going on in the Province today.

We had the Leader of the Opposition stand in his place today and ask questions with respect to certain issues; we had the Member for Ferryland asking questions with respect to the Western Memorial Health Care Corporation but the answers were not forthcoming; very general, skating responses, Mr. Chairman, to the questions and yet, this Administration want us, on this side of the House to say `yes' to the spending of over a billion dollars, over 30 per cent of the upcoming Budget, I would say. The Administration want us to say `yes' to that. I do not know if I would be able to say `yes' to it, Mr. Chairman. There is only one way that I could be persuaded, I suppose, and that is if there is a shotgun being put to my head again as it was before Christmas in the sitting of the House of Assembly when certain bills had to be passed through this House of Assembly before Christmas.

We had again, all-night sittings, sitting late in the evenings, thirty-six hours one sitting; we kept going and going and going on this side of the House and now, we have a situation where, in a few days, this Administration want us, the House of Assembly, to pass an Interim Supply bill to spend over a billion bucks - big dollars, Mr. Chairman, and I do not know if I would be able to do it.

If this House of Assembly had been opened two weeks ago, three weeks ago, a month ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: People still would be (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I cannot comment on people not sitting in their chairs. I cannot mention that certain individuals are not here; certain ministers and certain first ministers are not sitting in their chairs. I cannot say that, Mr. Chairman, so I will not say it - certain premier people, first minister people. But these people want us, the workers, on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, to approve this Interim Supply bill, and as I said, I have some problems with it.

As I was mentioning, again we are put in a situation where, within a few days, this Interim Supply bill has to be approved by this House of Assembly or certain people will suffer; and who will suffer, Mr. Chairman? The civil servants, the people working for the Crown corporations, people working for the health care corporations if this Interim Supply bill is not approved. If we had a Budget presented two or three weeks ago, we could give proper scrutiny, proper debate to the Budget and maybe pass it in due course, as Budgets normally are passed because, of course, the government has the ultimate power - we can only go so long anyway.

But the later the opening of the House of Assembly, towards the end of March, gives the Opposition less time to scrutinize the facts and figures. The Administration are so often good at manipulating figures, hiding numbers or whatever the case may be, Mr. Chairman, but we do have to look at what we have before us today, $1 billion to be approved.

A few concerns that I have, Mr. Chairman, with the Auditor General's report - there were many, many points made - a lot of concerns of the Auditor General. I am sure that once the Public Accounts Committee meet they will look at the Auditor General's report and see if there are any areas within the report that the PAC should have a public hearing on, have some debate on or to investigate or ask the Auditor General to go even further in certain areas that can be done by the Auditor General.

One area, for example, the Auditor General has been trying for a number of years now to be able to review MUN - Memorial University of Newfoundland, to get in there. I think any institution that spends the taxpayers' dollars, and certainly up in the millions and millions of dollars, they should be held accountable to this House of Assembly. I know the previous Premier had some problems with that. I am not sure if the present Premier has a concern that the Auditor General should not be permitted to go into Memorial University, but I am sure, in due course, members on this side of the House will be forthcoming with our concerns with respect to MUN not being audited by the Auditor General. If it takes a private member's resolution, maybe someone on this side of the House may, in due course, decide to present a private member's resolution and see where all members in this House of Assembly, representing all people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - see where they stand. The people who represent the various government members' districts, Mr. Chairman, maybe we should be having a private members' resolution put forward just to see where they stand and where the Premier stands. Maybe I will bring that forward in due course, as an individual private member, Mr. Chairman.

Now, this Administration want to spend various amounts of monies in various departments to get them over the hump until the Budget is approved. One of the departments that I am interested in, of course, Mr. Chairman, is the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. I am the critic for that department and Government Services and Lands, by the way, Mr. Chairman. I have a personal interest this year in this Budget, as we all do, I suppose, depending on what we are trying to get for our districts. I have had numerous conversations now with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, with the deputy minister and with other representatives of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

I seem to have a sore throat. I must be catching the flu, Mr. Chairman, from some of the members who have it on this side of the House.

The Department of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Chairman, as I was referring to, have a plan now to basically download a lot of the connector roads between municipalities in the Province to the municipalities. It seems to have been accelerated over the past couple of years. I have had some discussions with municipalities in my district to see if they would be interested in getting some work done in taking over the responsibility for the roads, only because I know that this Administration, in due course, is planning on forcing the municipalities to take them over anyway. So I saw the opportunity to have some money spent in the district, monies that would be, I expect, in due course, fought over by various municipalities across the Province, especially when it comes to light that the department is planning on forcing the municipalities to take it over anyway.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I made a prediction a few years ago that Works, Services and Transportation would try to download these roads to the municipalities without having them upgraded to a class A standard before the towns take the responsibility for them. Only last year there were two towns in my district approached by Works, Services and Transportation to take over these roads without the work being done. Of course, I spoke to the municipalities, I spoke to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and I put on as much pressure as I could, as the MHA for the area, to talk to the towns, saying they should refuse to take over the roads without the work being done. I spoke to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and told them the towns would refuse to take over the roads.

Then the other tactic they tried, Mr. Chairman, was to get the towns to take over the roads without the work being done, if they gave them a lump sum of money. I was opposed to that. Because if the towns took over the roads and were given a lump sum of money, the towns would then be automatically responsible to have the engineering work done, the inspection done, putting out the tenders and what have you. I felt that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation should be responsible for all that before the towns agreed to take them over. The towns did work out a deal with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and hopefully we will see some money being spent this year in the district.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Hopefully, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I am hoping to see some work done in the district on the roads. By the way, over the past twenty-five years I am sure there has been very little work done. There was some work done on the Marine Drive down in Outer Cove when the Pope came in 1979 or 1980, and there was a bit of work done, I think, on the WindGap in Flatrock, but not nearly what needs to be done. the maintenance on these roads has not been up to par, in my belief, and from what I have seen. Go to some districts in this Province and make the comparisons and you will understand where I am coming from.

As a matter of fact, there were bus tours down on the scenic Marine Drive that used to go down through Logy Bay and Outer Cove and over through Torbay and Flatrock, and the bus tours actually gave up going down there because the roads were so bad. They gave up going down there because of the hazard, dangerous, afraid they would go off the road, hit a bump, whatever the case may be, guard rails gone, shoulders washed away, lumps, humps, bumps all over the place. It is shocking, the state of the roads in my district.

I can speak about my district - and the Member for Bonavista South was up today and presented a petition on behalf of constituents in a community in his district, Lethbridge, trying to get some work done there. It is sad to say that to get some road work done you have to come to the House of Assembly - a right these days, and a necessity, a safety issue. Now, of course, there are communities in this Province that still have gravel roads.

People will ask, where are you going to get the money to do all these roads?

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier's air miles.

MR. J. BYRNE: There are lots of ways to get the money to do these roads and highways in this Province.

MR. SHELLEY: Air miles.

MR. J. BYRNE: Air Miles? Well, if you had the cash for the air miles there would be no problem, I would say.

Where will we get the money? I said it before in the House of Assembly, and I can say it again, and I am sure I will say it in the future. Take, for example, the Trans City deal - $40 million over the life of that contract. We brought it up in the House of Assembly and we were laughed at and ridiculed, we were wrong: No way, that is not right. But it went to the Supreme Court, and what did the Supreme Court say? Mr. Opposition, you are right, you were right all along, you are right again.

That is $40 million; the privatization of Hydro, they spent $10 million that - that is $50 million. A lot of roads can be done. How much a kilometre for a road these days, about $500,000? That is about 100 miles done now. That is $50 million. What is the Murray Premises down there, how many is there? Seven million dollars so far, and it could be another $10 million, go on from there. That is $67 million that we could have if it had not been wasted or given away.

There are a number of others, but that is enough for now, I would assume, with respect to coming up with some dollars. Here are some that we could come up with, the Auditor General's Report. How many millions of dollars could we have if the finances of this Province were properly administered, I say to the Minister of Finance? How many more millions could we have, if he could answer the questions that were put to him today? I am sure there will be a lot more questions forthcoming to the Minister of Finance, with respect to the Auditor General's Report.

Once the minister brings down his budget on Thursday, another good news budget, I suppose, coming forth - that is about it; good news and nothing else, as usual.

I see I have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture upset again. It is so easy to upset the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I do not understand what he is doing in the House of Assembly. I honestly do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: After the going over he got today.

MR. J. BYRNE: After the smack, the going over that the Member for Bonavista South gave him today, it is a wonder he is still here. No wonder his blood pressure is up all the time. No wonder he is taking those seal oil capsules. I thought seal oil would be bad for ulcers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not bad for ulcers. I thought greasy food would be bad for ulcers. If anybody in this Province, Mr. Chairman, should have ulcers, it would be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. With what is going on in this Province today, with the report that came down yesterday from the fisheries committee, from Mr. Baker and Mr. Matthews, the co-Chair or the deputy Chair, whatever, and the comment and the recommendations that were made, that minister should be - should he resign? Maybe he should resign really.

There is a man, Mr. Chairman, who fought tooth and nail, who when he was in Opposition was the saviour of the Newfoundland fishermen, and yesterday he was up in this House of Assembly defending foreign overfishing. Defending foreign overfishing is what he was doing, Mr. Chairman, in this House of Assembly yesterday, over ordinary Newfoundlanders. He has lost touch with reality. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has lost touch with reality; up defending foreign overfishing, foreigners over Newfoundlanders. Shameful! Nothing less than shameful, Mr. Chairman.

There are so many points, I do not know how long I can go on here today, Mr. Chairman. I had a few notes here. I want to say a few words with respect to the Minister of Finance and his counterpart, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, supporting the Minister of Finance on his tactics with respect to negotiation of the contracts for the civil servants of this Province; getting out in the media and saying: This way or no way. My way or the highway.

The Minister of Finance, who is supposed to have a heart - I compare the Minister of Finance to the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, Mr. Chairman, who does not have a heart, who is going around looking for a heart. Do you remember that? Did you ever watch the Wizard of Oz and the Tin Man. He was the guy who did not have a heart, wasn't he? He was looking for a heart.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is him.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what the Minister of Finance is like, does not have a heart. Here he is going around telling civil servants, who have not had an increase in salary since 1990 -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tin Man.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Tin Man. They have not had an increase since 1990. Now, what has gone up since 1990? The income tax has gone up, more deductions from your cheques. Union dues have gone up, I suppose. I am not sure on that one, but I would imagine. I know people with the Civil Service, Mr. Chairman, who are taking home less today than they were eight, nine or ten years ago. Everything else has gone up, heat and light. For example, your heat bill with the implementation of the HST, eight or nine dollars on $100. So anybody with a $200 bill next year, sixteen dollars a month, Mr. Chairman; the HST.

The people on fixed income have been hit hard, Mr. Chairman, over the years. We have seniors now trying to get their Civil Service retirement pensions. They increased along the same rate as the negotiated increases for the unions. Again we have the Minister of Finance telling the people: Listen, 7 per cent over three years; take it or leave it. In actual fact, as they are saying now, it is 7 per cent over twelve years probably, and some people are saying as low as 5 per cent, depending on how you look at it in looking at the dates when you see it implemented and if it is retroactive and what have you, Mr. Chairman.

So that is bargaining in poor faith, from my perspective. It is bargaining in poor faith and it is not fair, and it is morally wrong, to do this to the civil servants of this Province, who have been taking the cuts, who have been promised year-in and year-out: Just around the bend, and we have a Premier now saying: Prosperity is just around the corner.

You can say it whatever way you want: `around the bend', `a better tomorrow', `just around the corner' or whatever, but it is not putting bread and butter on the table or milk in the baby's bottle, Mr. Chairman for the people of this Province and we see them leaving in droves. The out-migration in this Province today is frightening. It is ironic, Mr. Chairman, that you see today in The Evening Telegram a series that is being put forward by Doug House.

It is ironic that we have a man today who is being paid by the Administration in the past years to make comparisons with Newfoundland and Ireland about the successes in Ireland in turning around their economy, yet today, in Newfoundland, we can make a direct comparison between Newfoundland and the out-migration and the people who left Ireland during the potato famine. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people left Ireland and now, we have people leaving Newfoundland, and more than likely going back to Ireland, Mr. Chairman. That is ironic.

Now, if the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not know what the word `ironic' means, I will send him over a dictionary. Does anybody have a dictionary that he could send over to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture because he probably does not know what the word `ironic' means. He might know if it has something to do with a codfish or something like that but when it comes to - sorry, I apologize. I will bite my tongue.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the two points I just made with respect to the potato famine in Ireland, people leaving and coming to Newfoundland and now, we have Mr. House, a professor at the University, making a comparison between Newfoundland and Ireland about the successes in Ireland. At that rate, we are, basically 200 years behind. So, `the better tomorrow' is 200 years from now. I do not know if I will be around in 200 years time.

MR. SHELLEY: The Cabot 700 celebrations.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Cabot 700 celebrations, that is what is going to happen.

Now, do you understand the point I am making, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture? Do you understand?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It went right over his head.

MR. J. BYRNE: It went right over your head, didn't it? Do you understand the point I am making?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Premier saying we have a better tomorrow: elect us, we will have a better tomorrow.

Now, we are in a situation where we are comparing ourselves to Ireland 200 years ago, so in actual fact, for us to be in the same situation that Ireland is in today, with a recovery in its economy, we have to wait another 200 years.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It was not the last election, it was the election before.

MR. J. BYRNE: It was the last election, by the way. And I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: If he were not up defending foreign overfishing in this House of Assembly yesterday, and listened to us, we could have seventy-five fish plants opened, maybe. Now, that is the reality of the situation; if you were not defending the foreign overfishing and not standing up for the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we might not be in the boat we are in today, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Now!

MR. EFFORD: Now! Take that!

MR. J. BYRNE: There, that is it, take heed.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I have almost gone to my limit now with respect to the time that is permitted.

Another point I would Like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, is the seal hunt. I want to support the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking with leave. Has leave been withdrawn?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you sure? I want to agree with some of the things you are saying about the seal hunt. Are you not going to allow me to do it?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want it to be noted that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would not allow me to speak on the seal hunt in this House of Assembly basically supporting some of the points that he made.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had to relieve members of the House from that speech, Mr. Chairman, I think it was beyond what they could enjoy or take for the next ten or fifteen - more then they could bear for another five or ten minutes.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk over the last couple of days about the fishing industry, about the Baker report or the Standing Committee's report on the fishing industry in Newfoundland. There have been comments made by members opposite and by some members outside that I agree with foreign fishing in Canadian waters. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I do not agree with one foreign boat or one boat from any other part of Canada or any part of the world fishing in our waters, around the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, when we have the ability to catch that fish. But what we should do is explain to the people of this Province the accuracy or the truth of what is really happening out there. Inside the 200-mile limit -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Inside the 200-mile limit we allocate to foreigners totalling 5,248 tons of fish. Most of that is part of the Canada-France Agreement, 5,248 tons of fish. Now, that should have been said in the Baker report. Five thousand, two hundred and forty-eight tons of fish is equal to what 4,500 seals would eat in one year. We have in excess of 6 million seals. There were not two paragraphs in the Baker report on the overpopulated seal herd.

Now, let us be honest about what is happening out there. If I saw fifty boats, sixty boats or seventy boats out there fishing today, I would go out with every Newfoundlander and do what we could to get them outside the 200-mile limit.

The 5,248 tons of fish was not caught by France. Fifteen hundred tons of cod, allocated to France under the Canada-France Agreement, was caught by National Sea last year. A Canadian Newfoundland company employing 300 people in Arnold's Cove, fifty-two weeks of the year, with secondary processing and value-added fish product, in particular, cod. Fifteen hundred tons was caught by National Sea. Fifteen hundred tons of redfish. Who caught the redfish last year? Mr. Chairman, it was processed by the National Sea company and whether they processed part of it in Nova Scotia or part of it in Arnold's Cove, it was part of the National Sea operation which employed in excess of 300 people in Arnold's Cove, 1,500 tons of redfish. Who caught the redfish last year? Not one member on the opposite side can answer that question. What is happening to that redfish this year? We have discussions going on now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The 1,500 tons that is allocated to France, we are now getting that Canadianized so that the Newfoundland boats which have proven the capability - the 64 foot, 11.5 inch boats have proven the capability of catching that fish. There is now going to be - a portion of that fish is under discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to add it to the existing quota of 1,400 tons they have out there.

Mr. Chairman, to tell anybody in this Province that 5,248 tons of fish would employ 27,000 people?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you what it would employ if - and by the way, we caught most of that. But if we were not catching one pound of that fish and it was being caught by Newfoundlanders, we would have, in total, 728 part-time jobs, 728 jobs, Mr. Chairman, out of 27,000. Now, that is only if we were not catching it but we are already catching a lot of that fish. We are already catching and harvesting and processing that fish in the country of Canada between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. How much squid did Japan take off the Grand Banks last year? We have a quote of 150,000 ton of squid. We have never, in this Province, caught the 150,000 ton. Last year Japan, off Nova Scotia where they had the quota, not off Newfoundland but off the Nova Scotia shelf, did not catch one squid. Not one squid did they take out off our waters. I said last year, I said this year and I will say in the future, they should not be allowed to take another squid. Whatever squid is in the waters around our shores should come to Newfoundland only. I am on record for saying that. But to give an impression that Japan is taking squid out of our waters is false.

What Japan is doing is taking part of the International quota of tuna, but Canada also takes their part of the international quota of tuna as well as our local Newfoundland boats. So to leave an impression, to say that we should have all of the quota of tuna, you can't have all off the quota of tuna. It is an international, worldwide migrating fish and part of it belongs to the international community and part of it belongs to Newfoundland.

Should we have more tuna to catch? Yes, we should have more. Have we tried to get more tuna? Yes, we have tried to get more tuna. So let us be honest with the people of this Province and let us look to where we should be.

Let us go back to a decade ago. What year was John Crosbie Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was Brian Tobin minister?

MR. EFFORD: I will deal with that in a second. I am getting to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1993

MR. EFFORD: Let us talk about it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: He closed the fishery in 1992.

MR. EFFORD: What quota did science recommend in 1989 and 1990? What did the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries do? Double what science recommended. What did they do in Trepassey. He allocated 10,000 ton of fish to Trepassey. FDI said, no, I am not taking that 10,000 ton because we know the fish is not out there. Let's call a spade a spade. Let us see what really happened to the fish stock off Newfoundland. Let us see the reason why today we have nobody working in the cod fishery in this Province except a few weeks on 3PS.

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, we are looking to the past on every issue, we should be looking to the future and not repeat the mistakes of the past. If there is a problem in 3PS, in DFO Management, if there is a problem there, deal with it. Change the management of the Department. But, to fire somebody! The Minister of the Department of the day makes the decisions in that Department. He or she is responsible and must take full responsibility for what goes on in their Department. You cannot fire one of my bureaucrats or one of the people in my Department if I make the decision. The Minister is responsible for that, Mr. Speaker. So, to say to fire all people in DFO for something that the Minister of the day caused, is wrong. Change the management, reorganize the Department, look to the future, yes, but don't go pointing back to ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago and try to blame all of our problems today on some official in a department of Government that advised the Minister of the day and the Minister did not take the advise.

Mr. Speaker, in the future, when we talk about where we are going let's focus on the needs of the Province, let's focus on the needs of those people who are displaced because of the closure of the ground fishery, who need some security of jobs in the future, who need a replacement income, who need a retirement package, who want to sell their licences. Let's focus on where we are going to make decisions in the future to benefit those people and let's not pick at straws that are not going to be of any substantial meaning to the needs of those people.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was not going to take part in debate here anymore this afternoon, but I was motivated by the Minister when he got up and went on his tirade of facts and figures. I say to the Minister, if you have those facts and figures and if the figures that have been put forward by the Standing Committee on fisheries, of the East Coast Report, are wrong, I ask the Minister why he doesn't table the correct figures here in this House. Put the figures that have been put forward by the East Coast Committee, where they talked about the amount of squid, the amount of turbot in 3L, the amount of round-nosed grenadier, the amount of mackerel, the amount of herring, the amount of caplin, the amount of salmon - put forward your figures and let's tell the people of this Province the real figures, the correct figures.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is again to his feet not talking facts. I have just announced my facts, just talked my facts. You put your figures up against mine and then let's debate who is right and who is wrong.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a matter of a disagreement between two hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, those are not my figures, I say to the minister. Those are figures that are taken directly from the East Coast Report. I said that yesterday, I will say it here again today, and I repeat it to the minister: My figures came from the report that was brought forward by a committee that was struck, a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, with nine members of the member's government. Nine of his cousins from Ottawa brought those figures forward. That is my argument.

When the minister stands and talks about the 150,000 ton of redfish that was harvested by National Sea, Mr. Chairman, the minister fails to say that that 150,000 ton of redfish was processed in St. Pierre and Miquelon. It was not processed here in Newfoundland, it was processed in St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Only a few days ago, Mr. Chairman, before the House closed, I stood here and asked the minister questions regarding the allocation of turbot in 3L -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, to correct what the hon. member just said: He referred to France as catching 150,000 tons of redfish. It is 1500 tons. Don't misrepresent the true facts; 1500 tons, not 150,000.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. minister took advantage of the opportunity -

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is correct in the figure that he just put forward.

CHAIR: Order, please!

When there is a point of order, I would appreciate it if the Chair be given the opportunity to rule on it.

The minister took advantage of the opportunity to clarify.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is correct, Mr. Chairman, in the figure that he just put forward. I made the mistake of giving the wrong amount. But those figures, Mr. Chairman, the figures that I put forward are figures that directly come from that report.

Prior to now, I stood here and asked the minister if he would confirm that there were 20,000 tons of turbot allocated in 3L. I asked him if he would confirm that there were 17,000 metric tons of that turbot given to foreign allocation, that was caught by foreigners, processed by foreigner. The minister said, no, I was wrong.

Then his own federal minister wrote a letter to the editor of The Evening Telegram and said: Roger Fitzgerald, Member of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland, was wrong in his statement, he was wrong in what he put forward in the House of Assembly. Only to read the report that nine members, nine of his cousins again, say the statement was correct, that there was that amount of fish being put forward, Mr. Chairman. Fishermen in Black Tickle could look out their windows and see those people fishing.

Mr. Chairman, the minister gets up and he says the amount of fish that is caught is unimportant. It is not important to go out and take this fish. The tuna that is being caught, 113 or 150 metric -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, boy, no. One hundred and thirteen metric tons, is it, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is 113. There is 35,000 -

MR. FITZGERALD: There are 113 metric tons to the Japanese market and 35 metric tons, Mr. Chairman, caught by the five Altantic Province here on the East Coast. Those are the figures.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty-five for us and 113 -

MR. FITZGERALD: And 113 for the Japanese market.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, read it, 113 metric tons. (Inaudible) get a chance to come back.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the hon. minister standing on a point of order?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: The Japanese were permitted to catch 113 tons of bluefin tuna inside the zone in 1997. Canada took 503 tons of tuna. You guys cannot read.

CHAIR: Again, as I ruled before, there is no point of order. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is taking advantage of the opportunity to clarify.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Again, Mr. Chairman, I refer to the Standing Committee's report, and it says quite clearly that there was 113 metric tons of bluefish tuna and 35 metric tons was taken by Canada. Now, we are talking about a fish, Mr. Chairman, 113 tons - the Committee took notes of two Japanese tuna ships, tied up in St. John's Harbour, and were told by DFO that the Japanese quota for bluefin tuna in Canadian waters was 113 tons for 1998.

MR. EFFORD: That is right.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not what you said.

And it was 35 tons for any one Canadian province, Mr. Chairman, 35 metric tons. The minister said it was 50-something metric tons. Now, we are talking about a fish that is worth probably $25,000 on the Japanese market. A fish that sells, in some places in Japan, for in excess of $50 an ounce. And the minister is saying that this is right.

Now, let me read you a couple of excerpts from a private member's resolution brought forward by this minister when he was the Chairman of the United Professional Fishermen's Association. After he got the flick out of Cabinet he brought forward a private member's resolution. It was all to do with foreign fishing. Now, I am going to read you a few excerpts from this and I will try to paraphrase, Mr. Chairman. I will just read a few highlights.

He said: This industry belongs to Newfoundland.

MR. EFFORD: Right!

MR. FITZGERALD: It is Newfoundland's industry.

MR. EFFORD: Right!

MR. FITZGERALD: The industry of every man, woman and child.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: The industry of our forefathers, our people today, our people in the future.

MR. EFFORD: That is right.

MR. FITZGERALD: If we take 200,000 tons or half, 175,000 tons - I do not know how he got that - of that fish, have it processed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we take 175,000 tons of fish, can you imagine the number of jobs it would make for people in this Province? jobs directly involved in the processing of that 175,000 tons of fish? Can you just imagine the number of spin-off jobs that would result from the money earned in the plants and spent in the community? Can you just imagine the number of companies that would benefit from providing gear to the boats, the number of crews and their families who would be involved in the catching of that fish? It is mind-boggling to think that we could have this fish swimming in our waters and not be allowed to access it.

Now, Mr. Chairman -

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

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

MR. EFFORD: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, exactly what is in that -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: That is exactly what I said and I am saying the same thing today on seals. The same impact and the loss of jobs today as the foreigners did back in those days are being caused by the hundreds of thousands and millions of seals that are in our waters and you or nobody else over there is listening to it.

CHAIR: Again, there is no point of order.

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture took advantage of the opportunity to provide further clarification.

I will remind the hon. the Member for Bonavista South that his time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Now, Mr. Chairman, I will go over one more paragraph.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Has the hon. member's leave been withdrawn?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I will just say a few words on the seal hunt. I want to support the minister on his words on the seal hunt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand again to bring forward parts of this report that was brought forward by the Chairman of the Professional Fishermen's and Fish Harvesters' Association. I want you to listen to this - stay where you are now, Minister, because this is a good one. He said: I am against foreigners fishing inside our 200-mile limit. Very simply, John Crosbie, the federal Minister of Fisheries and other ministers make it very clear that the only species of fish that foreign countries catch inside the 200-mile limit are species that we ourselves cannot use. This is total misrepresentation and a misleading statement for anybody in this country to make, Mr. Chairman, and I will go on. Are you telling me, having given to Japan this year a quota of thirty-two thousand tons, a hundred and thirty-two million pounds of squid, that we cannot catch squid in this Province?

Mr. Chairman, the country of Japan can still come here today and fish squid. They are still given quota inside our 200-mile limit - the very markets that own fishermen are trying to access in order to sell their product. Are you telling me that caplin was caught on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland this year and off the Labrador Coast by the Russians and many other countries and that we cannot catch caplin? This is the Minister's statements, I will not read any more. I will keep them for when the Minister returns. Because it all flies in the face of what the Minister stands for today. What a difference a day makes! When the Minister was back in the back benches on the other side, when he got the flick out of Cabinet - was given the flick, moved back to the back benches, then he went down on the waterfront and jumped on a boat and all of a sudden became the champion of the people; rose up and became the champion of the people. Now he is the puppet, Mr. Chairman; he is the puppet of the Premier, he is the puppet for the federal Minister of Fisheries.

The Minister is saying that George Baker's figures are all wrong, they are misleading, they are not correct. Maybe they are not, most of them came from DFO, I say to the Opposition House Leader, maybe they are not correct. Mr. Chairman, all I hear is ministers standing saying what we have done: We have done this and we have done something else. But we must be ever-vigilant in doing and trying to do more. Why settle for a smelter and a refinery down in Argentia? Why settle for half the jobs and half the opportunities? What about the frying pans, what about the kettles, what about the other products that are going to be made from the nickel that is refined down in Argentia if we are fortunate enough to get it. What about that, Mr. Chairman?

Those are the things that we have to look at if we are going to get our people employed. The Minister says it is only worth the number of people that you put in one fish plant. It is only worth, Mr. Chairman, half-a-dozen jobs. Well, I can tell a half-a-dozen jobs is very important in this Province when you see the rates of unemployment that we have here.

Mr. Chairman, now that the minister is back, maybe I will make a few more quotes from that great resolution that he brought forward, Mr. Chairman.

He said: Are you telling me, having given to Japan this year a quota of squid, that we cannot catch squid in this Province? We are doing the same thing today and you are agreeing with it, I say to the minister? Are you telling me, he is saying, that caplin was caught on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland this year, and off the Labrador Coast by the Russians and many other countries, and that we cannot catch caplin? Are you telling me that Newfoundlanders don't know how to catch caplin, is what he is saying? The 180 ton of tuna, one of the most profitable fish you can catch today, is selling at some $15 a pound, and today I just quoted you figures of some places in Japan where you pay $50 an ounce. It is certainly a much more valuable fish today. The minister is allowing that to happen.

Then he talks about the observer program, and he says they reported catching those large quantities of fish, and God knows how much they caught beyond that. If they have the audacity to report to the Government of Canada that they took that much, how much did they take beyond that? That question still remains true today.

When you see foreign observers, Mr. Chairman - and this is the one thing this government continues to hang its hat on when you talk about the Estai affair; what a wonderful move it was that we went out and arrested the Estai, brought her into St. John's port, put the crew up at the Newfoundland Hotel, cost the taxpayers of this Province thousands and thousands of dollars, allowed them to sail out of port, take their ship, take their crew, pay for their product, and the last chapter in that story is not written.

The minister stood in his place and he said: Now we have observers on all ships. All foreign ships, all Canadian ships, fishing out there today have observers on them. He failed to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that those same foreign ships have foreign observers hired by the boat owners from the same countries, the same communities, that those boats are sailing from. The minister doesn't tell you that those foreign reports are made, in most cases, on what is being caught on those foreign ships after the product is landed, after the product is processed, and after the product is sold.

Nobody is saying a word about all that because the photo opportunity has taken place. The minister went down to New York and he hired a crane, he carried the net down, and he strung it up for all the word to see, a great photo opportunity; Captain Canada. Until he can do that again, then you will not hear a squeak over there about foreign fishing.

There is another one here, Mr. Chairman. There is a lot of stuff here in this report. You are saying if you stop the foreigners fishing inside the 200-mile limit, you will close certain plants. You will not close plants because Canadians can catch those fish and if Canadians do not have the boats or the nets with which to catch that fish, well then, let us buy them. It seems awfully strange - I say to the Member for Topsail, you are the only fellow who is listening - that the minister has gone full circle now. Now he is saying that what we are giving away to the foreigners inside the 200-mile limit, and what we are giving away to the foreigners on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and The Flemish Cap, we cannot catch it because we do not have the wherewithal, we do not have the know-how. It is not worth catching.

Well I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not know, I am not aware of one species of fish - I am not aware of one boat that would not sail today with a crew of Newfoundlanders if they were given those quotas that the foreigners get. Some of them are written in such a way that they have those quotas for ten years after the moratorium is over. They are allowed to fish them now, they are allowed to fish them tomorrow, next year and when the moratorium is over, if the moratorium is over in 1998, Mr. Chairman, then they will be allowed to continue catching that quota, that same species of fish until 2008. Shameful!

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, boy, if it is not correct, you better call your cousin up in Ottawa and tell him to bring back new figures.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I challenge the minister to put forward his figures. Table them. Table your figures in the House here to show that the report that was brought forward by the Standing Committee in Ottawa has clearly misinformed Newfoundlanders, has clearly deceived the people on the East Coast, and you put forward your facts and figures, I say to the minister.

That is what is happening in this Province today, Mr. Chairman. The champion of the fishermen, the champion of the people of this Province, the champion of rural Newfoundlanders, has caved in to the pressures from his federal counterparts and from the Premier of this Province. It is shameful what has happened, that the one person over there whom the people trusted, today stands up and is now a supporter of foreign fishing. The Member here today from Port de Grave is a supporter of foreign fishing while thousands of our own Newfoundlanders are out there trying to find a job, trying to go back to their fish plants and go to work, Mr. Chairman. There's no champion of the people left anymore. It is shameful, Mr. Chairman, it is shameful!

The minister talks about seals. Very important! We all agree with you, Minister, we will support you to the hilt on that, and I agree as well that the harvesting should put forward whatever the markets demand. The other thing you can do - it is in your power to change, you don't have to be afraid of the IFAW - is have the minister go out and allow the sale of blue-backed pelts. What is the minister saying about that? Now here is a silly rule whereby -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: Just let me clue up and I'll will give you something to come back with.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to give you an indication now of how much credibility the hon. member opposite has in making statements to this House of Assembly and the accuracy of the statements he has made. He just talked about -

MR. FITZGERALD: Are those your figures now or somebody else's?

MR. EFFORD: No, just listen now. I will give you a chance to contradict them.

He just said in his speech that tuna in Japan is selling for $50 an ounce. That works out to $800 a pound, and an average tuna weighing 700 pounds works out to $560,000 for one tuna. You can have my job tomorrow, if that is the case, and I will be out tuna fishing tomorrow night on the Grand Banks. Five hundred and sixty thousand dollars for one tuna! That gives you an indication of how much credibility the hon. member puts forward.

In the case of Japanese squid, Japan has not caught any squid in Canadian waters in the last five years. When I gave that speech that he referred to, it was one of dozens of speeches I gave on foreign fishing. I do not agree with foreigners catching any fish inside or outside the 200-mile limit.

In reference to the 3L turbot, Mr. Chairman, for the record the hon. member is wrong on 3L turbot. I said in question period yesterday, there is no turbot being caught inside the 200-mile limit in the zone 3L. The full quota of turbot taken by the foreign ships is out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and off the Flemish cap outside the 200-mile limit. There is no turbot caught by the foreigners inside the 200-mile limit. That is what I said yesterday and that was in correction of a misrepresentation of what the Ottawa member gave, and I have `jugged' many of them, Sir.

If you could only have in your bank-book the squid I have `jugged', and sold then you would have a good bank-book.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) say they `jugged' them.

MR. EFFORD: Jug. Did I say jig, jug, jug. Jigged - jigged is the right word. What are you saying? What is the matter with you? Jigged is the right word.

Mr. Chairman, the Japanese are allowed to catch 113 tons of tuna annually. It is an international quota. Now, we are talking about the country of Japan. Canada's quota is 552 tons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) I will get to that. Five hundred and fifty-two tons is Canada's quota; we are talking about an international quota, an international allocation not made by one country. It is an international allocation based on country to country. They catch 113 tons, we catch 552 tons. In Newfoundland, actual landings of bluefin by fleet was thirty-eight tons in 1997. Is it thirty-eight tons we were allocated or is it thirty-eight tons that were caught in 1997? That is the question the hon. member should be asking.

We have changed around the fishery in Newfoundland, we have diversified the fishery and we are able to catch fish inside the 200-mile limit and the policy of the Canadian Government and the policy of this government, where we can prove the ability to harvest, we are saying all of that fish should be Canadianized. All of that fish should be Canadianized, and we are saying that, Mr. Chairman, I have said that since 1985, nothing has changed and nothing will change in my position. I am saying that we should extend the jurisdiction of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, to take over the spawning grounds of the stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. I do not agree with foreigners catching any fish that we can catch inside or outside the 200-mile limit.

What happened after we arrested the ESTAI? The first time in the history of this Province did we get observers aboard foreign ships outside the 200-mile limit. If nothing else, at least it was an improvement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

The hon. member, from a fishing community knows full-well that is not correct.

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure it is correct.

MR. EFFORD: You know differently. The compromise they made, they have observers from other countries, not from Canada, that is the compromise but you know full-well there was no fish given inside the 200-mile limit for vessels outside the 200-mile limit. You know that is correct. You make political points and accusations across the floor.

Mr. Chairman, we could argue about this and we could keep debating back and forth across the floor, but I want to go on record in this House of Assembly to make sure that there is no mistake in my position: I do not agree with foreigners catching fish inside or outside the 200-mile limit. I have emphasized time and time again before I was minister and now that I am minister, wherever possible we should Canadianize all of the quotas of fish regardless of the species as long as we can prove an ability to catch that fish.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will adjourn debate until tomorrow.

CHAIR: Before the hon. member stands, the Chair would just like to state for the record that when Orders of the Day was called, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board called Motion 1. I believe what was intended to have been called was Order 1, and I would like to ask for clarification for the sake of Hansard.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: So clarified, Mr. Chairman, as you read into the record.

CHAIR: Very well. Thank you very much.

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

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

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

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow being Private Members' Day, we will be dealing with the resolution from the Member for St. John's East, and I believe that deals with pension issues.

I move that the House adjourn, Mr. Speaker, until 2;00 p.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.