April 13, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to

the gallery today thirty-one high school students from Canon Richards High

School in the District of The Straits & White Bay North. They are

accompanied by their teachers Ron Parrill, Paul May and Isaac Hutchings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity today to send congratulations to two

constituents of mine, Mr. Bernard McGrath and his wife Marie, who will be

celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary on Saturday, April 30.

Mr. McGrath was a long time employee of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation and retired a few years ago. His wife Marie operated a store in

the community of Patrick's Cove for many years. Mr. McGrath is also a World

War II veteran. They retired a few years ago and moved to Placentia, into one of

the cottages at the Lion's Manor, and have been enjoying their retirement ever

since. They raised a large family and the family will be coming together on

April 30 to celebrate this major event in their home.

Mr. McGrath also turns eighty-five years of age on April 26, so it is kind of

a double enjoyment for everybody, and I would just like to take the opportunity

today to send congratulations to the McGrath family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to brief members on a business

success story in my district. The Eagle River Credit Union is coming off a very

successful 1999. In fact, it is the best year of their fifteen year history. The

Eagle River Credit Union increased their assets by $7.7 million in 1999 and have

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS JONES: Seven point seven million dollars in 1999, and have now reached

assets of almost $30 million. The growth of this credit union has been

phenomenal. This upsurge has made them the second largest credit union in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The four branches of the credit union,

located in L'Anse-au-Loup, Cartwright, Mary's Harbour and St. Anthony, all

experienced growth in 1999 and it is predicted this trend will continue in the

year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate this organization for their efforts and I

want to praise the staff, the membership and the board of directors in helping

the Eagle River Credit Union achieve its growth. I wish them continued success

in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, on

behalf of all members, the grade VI class from St. Theresa's School in the

District of St. John's Centre, accompanied by their teacher Ms Bradbury.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take this opportunity to respond to the announcement this morning

by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the 2000 snow crab

management plan. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is in full support

of the overall reduction of 25 per cent in this year's crab quota.

The 1999 snow crab landings reached a record level of approximately 69,000

metric tonnes, having increased from approximately 16,000 tonnes in 1992. This

dramatic increase in landings, which was recommended by scientists, has been a

key factor in the fishing industry's performance over this period. The 15,000

tonne reduction in this year's quota is based on the most current scientific

assessment which cannot be ignored.

It is imperative that we proceed on the side of caution and listen to

scientific evidence to ensure a sustainable crab fishery for the long term. We

agree that prudent management measures must be taken considering the latest

scientific information which shows a reduced commercial biomass and low

recruitment of juvenile crab in the fishery. As we have said many times in the

past, we must manage our fishery in a conservation-minded manner, and given the

scientific assessment that has been presented to us, the only responsible thing

to do is proceed with a reduction.

It should be clearly understood that the reduction in the snow crab quota is

not the result of over fishing as was the case with Northern cod. The snow crab

resource has been managed in a most prudent manner over the years and this

explains why the quota increased dramatically over the 1992-1999 period. In the

absence of healthy juvenile snow crab recruitment year after year there is bound

to be cyclical fluctuations in the resource, which in turn will lead to quota

adjustments like those announced today for the 2000 fishing season.

I would like to point out that the snow crab market remains very strong and

we anticipate that upward price adjustments for crab landings this year will

offset, for the most part, the quota reductions announced today. Once the

fishery commences we will have a better understanding of the impact this

reduction will have on processing employment in the crab sector.

I want to conclude by saying that the reductions announced today are being

made for prudent fisheries management reasons for the longer term benefit of the

industry. This is why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supports the

reduction announced today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me, on behalf of my colleagues

in the Official Opposition, thank the minister for sending us a copy of his

statement.

As I tuned in today to find out the results of this announcement, I was

really dumbfounded to find out that just as in 1992 when another announcement

was made - only that time, I guess, more severe about the closing of a fishery -

the fishermen, the harvesters of the resource, were again today locked out of

the DFO media briefing. The fishermen were not allowed in to that briefing again

today.

The only thing, I say to the minister, that was different in 1992, in how the

fishermen were handled today, was a fellow named Cabot Martin and the present

minister, who in 1992 at least tried to break down the doors so that the

fishermen could get in; but today the doors were not broken down and the

fishermen of the Province were again barred out of that meeting.

There is a lot of concern in the Province today as it relates to the crab

fishery.

MR. EFFORD: That is not true.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is true. We were down there, Mr. Speaker; they were not

allowed in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things in the minister's

statement that I want to respond to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not so sure that we can very confidently say that the resource has been

prudently managed, as the minister says in his statement. For example, in the

statement that was made today, in the statement that was issued by DFO today, it

was clearly pointed out that a problem was observed in recruitment of female

crab in 1995. Now, if that advice had been acted on, or if that scientific

information had been acted on in 1995, maybe some of this pain could have been

staged over a five or six year period. Perhaps it could have been. I don't

know. I am just raising the issue, could it have been? I think it is up to the

minister to tell us.

The other thing, of course, that flows out of this statement is that yes,

there is optimism and, I think, room for proper optimism that the fishermen

themselves will be able to recoup a lot of their losses because of the price

increase. The problem, though, is going to be with the plant workers. The plant

workers, however way you cut it, are going to be facing, along the Northeast

Coast and in Labrador in particular, a 30 per cent reduction in the hours that

they are working because there is a 30 per cent reduction in the amount of

resource available for processing. That is going to be a problem that the

have to address.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no difficulty in supporting the reduction that was announced today

in the crab fishery. The only question, I suppose, is whether or not it is

significant enough and significantly cautious enough. With a serious reduction

in the biomass, one wonders whether this level can be sustained for another

year, next year. We are, unfortunately, in the position where we cannot

guarantee that we can fish the maximum amount of any resource and continue to do

that . There is so much uncertainty. You know, ten years ago this wasn't even

a significant fishery. Now, we are dealing with dependence on this to the point

where, as the previous Opposition critic -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - has indicated, where so many people, not only fishermen but

plant workers, are dependent on this, that we do have to be extremely cautious,

extremely responsible and extremely prudent in our projections.

I hope that the fishermen will accept the reductions that are here. I hope it

is sufficient. I know there is going to be some advantage to the increased

price, but there are going to be serious losses in the processing sector. I

think we have to accept that if we are going to have and continue to have a high

level of employment and economic activity in rural Newfoundland.

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

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

I am pleased today to report that we have approved funding, through Disaster

Financial Assistance Program, to repair damages caused by a storm surge on the

South Coast of our Province earlier this year. This action is part of the $4.3

million commitment made by our government in this year's Budget. A portion of

this funding will be recovered on application to the federal government.

In Trepassey, $242,000 has been approved to restore damages to a sea wall and

two sanitary sewer outfalls to pre-storm conditions. In Bay de Verde, $125,000

has been approved to make repairs to a damaged outfall. We are also continuing

to work with other eligible communities that are seeking funding to repair

damages caused by the storm surge.

Mr. Speaker, more damage was done last month in the communities of Belleoram,

St. Jacques- Coombs Cove, Cupids, Brigus Sunnyside, Clarkes Beach and Colliers.

Heavy rains caused flooding which damaged roads and infrastructure. I am also

pleased today to inform members that government has provided $61,000 in

emergency funding for Belleoram to help repair the immediate damages in that

community.

In Belleoram, damage occurred in three locations: in the Church Road area

where two culverts across Church Road were damaged and a culvert across the Main

road was completely blocked; along the road leading to an abandoned school,

including debris on the property; and along a

section of Main Street where the

shoulder of the road was washed away. This $61,000 funding, which was requested

by the Town Council of Belleoram, has ensured that blocked culverts were cleared

and the integrity of the roads in question were maintained.

Mr. Speaker, assessment of non-emergency damages have also been completed in

many of these same areas. The department has worked with all the communities to

assess the needed repairs, and required funding for these communities will be

given the highest priority under the Municipal Capital Works program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We, on this side of the House, share this announcement. I say to the minister

that it is a timely response, given the complexity of these matters; more timely

than, for example, when the government responded to the situation in Marystown a

few years ago and it took a much longer time.

Mr. Speaker, we know that these funds are needed in these communities. We

note as well that this will permit the communities to get on with the business

of providing services, and in some cases will provide essential services to get

on with the industries of the communities.

We note as well that the Insurance Bureau of Canada has made some statements

regarding a federal/provincial cooperation program that they are suggesting,

whereby the provinces and the federal government might put monies aside each

year so that we can be ready to meet these kinds of disasters that occur,

particularly in view of the climate changes and the frequency with which these

disasters occur in and around our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We support the minister's statement, in support for these communities.

Clearly, this type of extraordinary cost and expense should be shared by all the

people of the Province. It is an unfortunate situation that we do have natural

disasters of this nature, and it is quite appropriate that we all share in this

cost. It is perhaps something that we could plan for in the longer run by

working out some special program or having special protocol in place as to when

disasters can be announced by government so that we do kick in with collective

support for communities in disaster situations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As most hon. members are probably aware, the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment

and Research Foundation benefitted from a successful VOCM/CFCB Garden of Hope

Radiothon yesterday. More than $64,000 was raised to assist with maintaining the

Garden of Hope at the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre here in St. John's,

and to provide much needed equipment at Cancer Centres across the Province.

Money pledged in the Western regional in particular will specifically go to the

construction of the new Cancer Centre and the development of a new Garden of

Hope at the Corner Brook facility. In the six years that the Garden of Hope

Radiothon has been carried out, it has raised almost $200,000 to assist cancer

patients and their families in this Province. Many thanks to the citizens of

this Province who always make it a priority to make donations for such good

causes as this one.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the members of the Legislature that

government is also concerned with ensuring patients in this Province receive the

kind of health care they need to manage their cancer related illness. In a

special one-time arrangement, the Department of Health and Community Services

has recently provided $72,575 to allow the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and

Research Foundation to complete renovations in the new Cancer Centre Western

Region in Corner Book. The redevelopment of this unit is well underway at this

point at a total cost of over $500,000. Including the recent payment made by

government, government has provided over $400,000 of this total redevelopment

cost, with the remaining raised, again, through fundraising efforts like the one

yesterday. By providing this funding, the department is helping to ensure that

cancer patients and their families have a state-of-the-art treatment centre in

Corner Brook, in the western region.

The quality care of cancer patients is important to this government, That is

why in the Budget this year we also provided approval for the replacement of

radiation therapy equipment which is instrumental in the treatment of cancer.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in this Province, and across the

country. In conclusion, I would like to assure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

that we have highly skilled health professionals caring for patients with

cancer,. We also have a solid cancer program, evidenced by the recent successful

accreditation of the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. The

success of such programs is made much easier when governments, corporations like

VOCM and CFCB, and the residents of the Province work together for worthy

initiatives. Thank you to all who participated in events like the Radiothon

yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly, too, offer congratulations to those involved in this effort.

VOCM, CFCB, and all those who contributed I think were the main people we should

thank here in the process. It is good to see we are developing opportunities in

different parts of the Province so people don't have to travel outside the

region. I have raised the issue before, as the minister is well aware, that I'm

a strong believer that in each region of the Province there have to be adequate

facilities to be able to treat various illnesses, including cancer. Because it

takes a toll on the patient himself or herself and on their families, disrupted

by having to travel into St. John's to stay here for extended periods of time.

I'm delighted to see it is moving forward in the Corner Brook area of the

Province, as well as beefed up in other centres that can offer at least certain

services that would not normally be available there.

I certainly would like to add, with reference to the treatment of cancer,

that it has been a concern here, and we have had problems here in being able to

get adequate treatment. We have had medical physicists, radiation therapists and

so on, through a reclassification, to try to make their wages a bit competitive

to retain people here in the capacity. We have had, even in a recent

announcement here, concerns as to the ability to be able to provide the

treatment of people within a safe time period, and an offer to travel to private

clinics in the United States if a need arises.

So we do need to have a more beefed up service here. We have had problems in

the past with a turnover within several months of every medical -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. We had a turnover just over a year ago of every

single medical oncologist, basically, that we had here in the Province. It has

stabilized somewhat now. We have to continue to try to stay competitive in terms

of the personnel providing this life-saving treatment, and we also have to put

great emphasis on having regional areas of our Province where we can provide the

service to people close to their homes because it has a devastating affect on

the recovery, on the patient himself or herself, and on their families as a

result.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for a copy

of his statement.

I think it is fair to say that the generosity of the people of this Province

has come through once again. It is important to have treatment centres such as

this in the Province so that the patients and their families can be cared for

much better. I do want to say that in such an issue as serious as this, one can

question whether or not we should have to rely upon the charity of the people of

the Province to provide a much needed service as serious as cancer treatments

and facilities. It is great to see the people of the Province come forward and

respond to initiatives like this, but again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - we have to question whether or not we should have to be

doing that.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Just as many fishermen, plant workers and processors in the Province have

expected for the last several weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

announced significant reductions in crab quotas in all fishing zones around

Newfoundland and Labrador today, except 3Ps and 4R+3PN.

My question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is this: Was the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador briefed on the extent of those quota

reductions prior to today's announcement? If so, can the government now inform

the House what contingency plans it has in place to deal with the 30 per cent

reduction in employment hours, especially along the Northeast Coast and Labrador

where this loss of employment is going to be most severe?

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

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me correct the misinformation

that the hon. member gave in reaction to my statement. The fishermen were not

barred from a briefing this morning. They were barred from the media briefing.

There was a separate briefing given at 12:30 this morning to all industry

stakeholders, and the fishermen certainly could have attended that if they had

so chosen.

Were we briefed prior to today's announcement? Yes, as well as everybody

else in the industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. Actually, I had the first

briefing on the state of the stocks, from a harvesting point of view, last

December. At that time, the Campelen trawl surveys were not completed and

we did not get any information from that then but we did just prior to going to

the Boston Seafood Show.

What contingency plans do we have in place? Well, we cannot control nature's

way of doing things. Nature caused this reduction. It is not caused by over

fishing. In fact, last year's quotas were the largest ever in the history of -

AN HON. MEMBER: The second-largest (inaudible) this

year.

MR. EFFORD: This, actually, is the second-largest crab quota in the

history of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: This year coming.

MR. EFFORD: This year coming. Let's keep in mind what happened last

year. We had a very successful industry last year, a $1 billion export value,

but at that same time we left 42,000 tonnes of uncaught quota of different

species of fish in the water. So, given the increase in crab prices this year -

and let's take all of the 16 million pounds of shrimp that we didn't take

out last year, 8,000 tonnes of turbot, scallops, tuna, red fish and other

species, I think it can significantly make up for any loss of employment that is

going to be lost through the crab processing this year.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when the minister made his

statement, it is anticipated that the increase in prices will result in

certainly perhaps the fishermen, the harvesters, not suffering any great

economic loss. We all admit that. The problem, of course, is that will not be

the case for the plant worker who this year will have 30 per cent along the

Northeast Coast and Labrador, will have 30 per cent less raw material to process

than last year, resulting in 30 per cent less work, resulting in 30 per cent

less hours of work than last year. That is the question I am trying to zero in

on, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the minister: Has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador -

knowing, as it has for weeks, that this situation was coming - approached the

package to help those plant workers who are going to be negatively affected?

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

MR. EFFORD: The answer to the last part of the question first, absolutely

not. We haven't even given a thought to doing that, and it wouldn't make any

sense. First of all, it is 30 per cent less work, or expected work, in the crab

industry this year; but, except for lat year, it is more than we have ever had

in the history of the Province. This is the second-largest quota we have had in

the history of the crab fishery.

Now, take into consideration -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Take into consideration the 42,000 tonnes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Do you want the answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Well, listen and you will get it.

Forty-two thousand tonnes of fish that were not harvested last year can and

will be harvested this year and processed in most of the same plants that were

talking about taking a reduction in crab production.

If we are going to have less weeks of work in crab, we can certainly make up

a significant number of those weeks, and maybe more, in the harvesting of the

species that we didn't catch last year; 42,000 tonnes of uncaught fish last

year, that was not caught and was not processed. Therefore, if it was not

processed, the people in the plants did not get that work. Take that out of the

ocean this year, put it through the processing plants, and those people will get

extra hours, extra weeks of work.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the answer then is, there is no contingency

plan. The only plan is hope, some hope, that there will be extra species of some

sort caught.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the minister: Today's announcement,

while harsh in economic terms, is relatively simple as it applies to areas 2J

and 3K. It is a total 30 per cent across the board reduction. It is not so

simple, though, when it comes to the 20 per cent reduction for area 3L+3N+3O as

the minister knows. The small boat fishermen, for example, in the 20-mile zone

in that particular fishing zone, who will lose 20 per cent of their 17,000 pound

quota with no access to groundfish, stand to be economically devastated.

So I ask the minister: Is there any plan to help those fishermen who are

going to be so severely cut in their quota?

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

MR. EFFORD: Crying wolf, preaching doom and gloom, crisis before the

fishing season has even started. Mr. Speaker, I was here from 1985 to 1989. We

knew what doom and gloom was all about when the middle distance and the factory

freezer trawlers came in place. We knew all about that then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: This fishery is going to be managed in a prudent manner which

is going to protect the fishermen, the plant workers, and the industry as a

whole for the long term. It is not going to be based on a reactionary situation.

It is going to be pro-action, and that is what was put in place this morning.

Who said the small boats are going to take a 20 per cent cut? That is not -

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what I (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, you said it. Is there a contingency plan in place due to

the fact that the small boat fishermen are going to take a 20 per cent cut? That

has not been decided yet. That will be decided in consultation meetings over the

next number of days or weeks, whatever it takes, to work out an appropriate plan

that is going to impact on every sector.

There are other things in the ocean besides crab. I am not going to say that

the small boat fishermen are not going to find an impact this year, but we are

willing to work with the small boat fishermen looking at whelk, looking at

caplin, looking at cod, looking at blackback flounder, herring, mackerel, squid.

There is more in the ocean than crab.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the small boat fishermen. Tell the truth, you

don't (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the minister's attempt to politicize the

answer will cause crab fishermen in St. Bride's to dance in the streets

tonight with joy, I'm sure.

Now the minister is aware that the crab fishery in area 3L+3N+3O consists of

many different categories of fishing and licences. Let me ask the minister this:

Can the minister tell the House whether or not the exploratory crab fishery in

3L+3N+3O will be reduced by 20 per cent? Will it be cancelled? What is the

status of the exploratory crab fishery in that particular area?

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

MR. EFFORD: The exploratory crab fishery will take the greatest decrease

this year, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there will be no further exploratory quotas out

in 3L+3N+3O this year. Now, I hadn't the time this morning to sit down and go

through all of the details on each zone and which group will take the greatest

decrease on the sectors. You have the small boat fishermen, you have the 150

pot, you have the large supplementary, you have the full-time, and you have

outside the 200-mile limit where the large supplementary and the full-time fish.

We will find out over the next couple of days, but we know that the large boats

are mobile. They have the ability to fish many different species unlike the

small boat fishermen. We are very aware of that and the plans that will be put

in place, full consultation held with the industry as a whole, will be to have

the least amount of impact on the small boat fishermen.

So do not let the hon. member say that we do not care about the small boat

fishermen. We do care about the small boat fishermen. We do care about all

fishermen, all plant workers, everybody in the industry!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: The jury is out on that yet, Mr. Speaker. The minister just

responded to my question on the exploratory crab fishery out in 3L+3N+3O. My

final supplementary has to do with the experimental fishery which is another

category, as the minister knows, in 3L+3N+3O. Is the plan to continue with that

fishery this year? What is the status of that particular fishery?

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

MR. EFFORD: My understanding from my discussions with the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans this morning, and with my officials of my department on the

briefing that they were given this morning, is that there will be no further

experimental fisheries outside the 200-mile limit or in 3L+3N+3O or on the Nose

and Tail anywhere outside the 200-mile limit.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem on our hands. The one thing we are not going

to do is create panic all across the Province. The fishermen themselves, the

industry as a whole, are a part of the management plan. DFO does not make

decisions in isolation of the fishermen. Everybody sits at the same table. The

fishermen themselves have said: We recognize there is a problem, we know we are

going to lose some money in the crab fishery this year, but we would rather take

some short-term pain for some long-term gain. That is prudent management, unlike

when we built the middle distance fleets and that really cut out the small boat

fishermen.

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

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

My question today is for the President of Treasury Board. Minister,

section

28.2 of the Financial Administration Act requires that before a special warrant

is approved the necessity has to be of an urgent nature. The Department of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods received an approval on March 12, 1999 to pay the

Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy Nature Trust $1 million. However, this Trust

was not established until September 14, 1999, a full six months later.

I ask the minister: How did this special warrant meet the requirements of

section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member opposite that

the special warrant issued for the Legacy Nature Trust was in complete

compliance with the Financial Administration Act. In fact, when the entity was

formed last spring the cheque was issued and held in trust until all the board

of directors were named and the organization was set up. It was held and the

warrant was in complete compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

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

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

I say to the minister that on March 12, 1999 the Newfoundland Municipal

Financial Corporation was given $5 million in the form of a special warrant for

their reserve fund. As of July 31, 1999, four months after the fiscal year-end,

there was still $9 million in their reserve fund. Obviously, there was no urgent

need for this special warrant. How did this special warrant meet the

requirements of

section 28.2 of the Financial Administration Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say to the member opposite that

all the special warrants that were tabled in this House were done in proper

order and in complete compliance. I would say that all the special warrants that

were issued were issued by a minister. The usual requirement is that the

minister must indicate in writing that an urgent need exists, which was done.

All documents must be tabled in the Legislature in accordance with strict time

frames, which was done. A supplementary supply bill must be approved by the

Legislature for all special warrants relating to spending. In fact, all of these

have been carried out. They were in complete compliance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's definition of urgent must be

different than mine: six months later.

Why is it, minister, that $123.8 million out of the $136.1 million issued in

special warrants for the fiscal year 1998-1999 was issued in March, the last

month of the fiscal year? Isn't government contravening the Financial

Administration Act by abusing the use of special warrants to manipulate the

bottom line of the Budget? The Auditor General says that there was $95 million

in contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say to the member opposite

is that government must have flexibility to take care of urgent needs as they

arise. I would also say that government is a complex organization. With a budget

of $3.4 billion, we must have the flexibility to respond to situations as they

arise. Again, I say to the member opposite, they were all in complete compliance

with the Financial Administration Act.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Justice. At times, certain persons

for many different reasons are held in hospitals or institutions throughout the

Province under the Mental Health Act. I would like to ask the minister: When a

person is held under the Mental Health Act, are they a ward of the Crown? Is the

Crown responsible for their safety and well-being?

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that anyone who is

hospitalized pursuant to that act, of course, as entitled to anyone who is in a

provincial institution would be entitled to all safety requirements that fall on

the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, on July 28, 1998, John Francis Careen of

Placentia fell to his death from an open window at St. Clare's Hospital in St.

John's. Needless to say, this tragedy has caused the Careen family untold

misery and suffering. They are looking for answers and have asked for a judicial

inquiry into circumstances surrounding John's death. The last correspondence

to your department, minister, was in January of this year. There has still been

no response.

I would to ask the minister today when the Careen family can expect this

inquiry to receive approval from his department.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, whether or not an inquiry is held is determined

based upon recommendations usually by the Chief Medical Examiner in the

Province. He or she can recommend to the minister if such an inquiry be held. At

this point the department has not decided what that ultimate decision will be.

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

& St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the minister is fully aware that he can put

forward an inquiry without the Chief Medical Examiner. The Careen family and

their lawyers have dealt with three Ministers of Justice on this issue: Minister

Decker, Minister Dicks, and now you, Minister Parsons. They have waited almost

two years for an answer from the Department of Justice.

As I ask these questions today, family members join us in the gallery, still

waiting for an answer. I want to ask the minister: Isn't it time it assist

this family in finding the answers? Isn't it time to set the record straight

on what happened to John Francis Careen? Isn't it time to do the right thing

and order a judicial inquiry today?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, a minister decides upon an inquiry if he thinks

it is necessary in the protection of the public interest or in the public

safety. As indicated earlier, I am aware of the Careen inquiries very recently.

It is still under review, and an ultimate decision has not yet been made. We

hope to be in a position to make that decision in the very near future.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The watershed of the Main River in the

Premier's former federal riding contains one of the most significant old

growth arboreal forests in all of North America. Currently, Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper plans to log that area. I want to ask the Premier whether his

government is prepared to ensure that this area is protected, and is part of

what we hope will be the Heritage River under the Main River next to the Gros

Morne National Park? Will he ensure that his government will see that area is

protected and work with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to identify alternate

sources of fibre to ensure that this area is protected, and that Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper has adequate resources to continue to produce pulp and paper?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That particular project was registered under the environmental review as we

speak. We did submit the guidelines to the company. These guidelines are now in

front of the department officials and we are presently going through that.

Within the time frame, at the end of the thirty days, we will make a decision as

to if the environmental preview was satisfactory, or will we go farther.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the question really is not whether it is going

to be environmentally done, but whether it is going to be done at all. This is a

significant resource and ought to be protected for all of us. The Government of

British Columbia took a leadership role in working out arrangements between the

logging industry, the environmental industry and those who want to protect the

old growth forests. Why can't this government take a leadership role as well

and do the same time here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment gave, I believe,

what was an appropriate respond. The Minister of Environment said that a proper

objective environmental assessment is going to be done, that the issues that

concern the ministry will be addressed, and in due course a decision will be

handed down.

I think it is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for

those who depend upon the forestry industry in our Province, to understand the

position of the Leader of the NDP. I give him full credit for making his

position clear. The position of the Leader of the NDP is that large portions of

the Province should be set aside - from the point of view of forestry resource -

notwithstanding whether or not environmental concerns are met.

What the Leader of the NDP has just said is that even if there is an

environmental review, even if environmental concerns have been met, even if all

of that occurs, then a large portion of the forest resource should not be

harvested; it ought to be set aside.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the forestry industry is one of the largest and

least talked about in our Province. We do have a fibre gap in our forestry

industry. That gap will close over the next fifteen years as new growth comes

into being, but if we decide today that we are going to take large portions of

the Province, notwithstanding environmental review and notwithstanding every

environmental concern being met, and set those aside, then we have to start

deciding which paper machines are going to close; and every one of those

machines - yes, I say to the Leader of the NDP, you are shaking your head -

every one of those machines is several hundred jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: So I say to the Leader of the NDP, I wonder whether the

unions who represent those workers know of the position that he has taken today

in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are to the President of Treasury Board. The Auditor General has

repeatedly expressed concern over the lack of information being provided to the

House of Assembly by agencies of the Crown and the university which are funded

primarily by the public purse. The Auditor General has recommended development

of an accountability framework for all public sector entities in the Province.

Why has the minister failed to have the annual financial reports of hospital

boards, school boards, the university, the colleges and a host of other Crown

entities tabled in the House of Assembly as suggested by the Auditor General?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the member opposite's question, I would have to say to the

Member for Waterford Valley that the accountability framework for boards and

agencies is well underway. There was a bill before this House last spring, as

you recall, and it was later decided that a policy arrangement would best serve

the boards and the people of this Province. This framework accountability is

well in progress and you will be interested - if you would like to have a copy

of it I would be pleased to offer you one.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The Auditor General reported that the progress report, which (inaudible) by

the guidelines for departmental planning and accountability for 1998-1999 was

due in May, 1999, but was deferred. I want to ask the minister: Will the

government meet its target, have the accountability progress report for

1999-2000 ready for this May, as has been suggested previously, and will she

table that report in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I previously said, the accountability framework is well underway. In fact,

most of the boards out there are now in progress, putting this into place. I

would have to refresh the member opposite's memory. In fact, the budget itself

this year contained provisions for acceptance of the accountability framework,

not unlike the member opposite who, in their Blue Book, was against board setups

for hospitals and education and so on. We are going further than the original

bill that was before this House set out. We are going to include more entities

and organizations than that bill ever decided to set out.

Thank you.

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

Valley.

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

The minister noted that last year the government tabled

an act in the House,

an act to provide for an accountability framework for public bodies, but that

act was later let die on the Order Paper. Is it the government's intention to

introduce a similar piece of legislation? Will it be done in this session? If

not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, government always has the option to introduce

new legislation at any point, and we will always have that option to reintroduce

legislation for accountability framework. However, this is a bold step to bring

in accountability framework for boards and entities in this Province. We would

rather use a cooperative approach and work with the boards. We have already done

that. We have already had many training and planning sessions. We have an

accountability framework manual in place. We even have a new booklet prepared

now for members who will serve on all those boards. So, we are well in progress

and I am quite satisfied with the progress to date.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Nurses who wish to do advanced training to become nurse practitioners can enter

a one-year program at the Centre for Nursing Studies. This is the third year the

program has been offered and there have been twenty-two nurse practitioners who

have graduated from this program and are licensed to practice here in our

Province. Nurse practitioners are very valuable to our health care system and

are trained to do various tasks and procedures that were normally done by

doctors.

I ask the minister: Has he identified areas of our health care system where

these nurse practitioners can obtain employment and remain here in our Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, the introduction of the program was done because of the fact that

the health care boards in Newfoundland and Labrador had already identified areas

where they thought they could usefully engage nurse practitioners, and many of

the boards actually have plans to employ the graduates from the program. As

well, there was funding provided in the Budget this year, I think in the range

of just over $1 million, to enable the hospital boards, the boards that run our

institutions, to actually put on salary and to hire the graduates of the Nurse

Practitioner Program in several regions of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He should tell that to all of the boards, I would say. I am aware of a case

where a nurse practitioner just had to seek work outside our Province on a oil

rig off Nova Scotia, one who graduated last August, I might add. Even though she

was sponsored by a health care board, actually the Health Care Corporation of

St. John's, when she graduated she had to return to her regular position. Now,

to maintain her nurse practitioner licence, you must have 1,800 hours over two

years, which equates to about half-time, one year in two. With time running out

to maintain this status after eight months, and still having to work in a

regular position prior to doing this course, she obviously had no choice but to

make a decision to take a job on an oil rig off Nova Scotia.

I ask the minister: Is he concerned that qualified medical professions are

not being utilized to their potential in our health care system?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr Speaker, it is very much a bigger issue actually than

just the nurse practitioners. That is why, in fact, we have a human resource

group that has been working with the health care boards and the department to

look at the maximum utilization of each of the skill sets for all of the health

care professionals we have. We debated last week in the Legislature a private

member's motion talking about increasing and maximizing the scope of practice

for our Licenced Practical Nurses so that they could relieve nurses of some of

their duties. The same discussion is going on within the committee in terms of

maximizing the uses of the nurse practitioners so that, in particular, some

general practice and family practice physicians can have some of the burden

lifted and relieved from them so they can dedicate themselves to things that

only physicians can do in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Most of the health care boards are in a circumstance now where they are

trying to maximize the use of all the professional groups, no less and no more

than they are trying to do with the nurse practitioners. That is why in this

Budget, this year, we did put in over $1 million to make sure that the boards

could actually hire the nurse practitioners, some of which were sponsored, as

the hon. member points out, and some of which just chose to do the course

because they want to engage in that kind of work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I met with the group of some twenty-two potential graduates a week or so ago.

They raised some of these issues with us and most of them are expecting that

they will probably be employed upon completion of their training.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This nurse received sponsorship from the board, and she is required to pay

back the salary that she received during her year of training. I ask the

minister: Does he consider it appropriate to request a salary payback when a

sponsored person is not given employment in the position to which they were

sponsored?

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

MR. GRIMES: I guess, Mr. Speaker, I can read from the hon. member's

question that if they were the government, which they are not - some people

would suggest fortunately, others unfortunately - that they would, in fact,

enable someone - because the circumstance that he describes needs an

explanation. The circumstance described is that a person who was in the employ

of a health care board agreed contractually with that board that the board would

pay them most, if not all, of their salary while they trained so they would be

treated as if they were still working while they were getting increased skill

sets. The person may not have gone back and used the new skill sets to the

maximum advantage, but they certainly could have gone back to a job that they

had.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: They received payment as if they worked. If they do not go

back, I am sure they would be standing up asking another question as to why the

Auditor General would suggest that they were offered money on a contractual

basis that they would pay back, and then that the board did not try to get the

money back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: So, they have to make up their minds where they stand on

these kinds of issues. It is a good program. It is working well, and I am sure

that they would like to see it properly enforced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 2. I believe we have agreement that we will

do the Concurrence debate on whichever of the three reports we wish to do the

Concurrence debate. When the time runs out, we will put the question.

Order 2, but no particular report. We will deal with all reports by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, the Concurrence Motion on Social Services

Committee, Resource Committee, and Government Services Committee.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you going into committee or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

I am pleased to stand in my place again today and tell the people of the

Province the truth about this Budget. What the government is trying to portray

and what the people of the Province are actually getting are two different

things.

First of all, they are trying to say that they have a $34 million deficit. In

actual fact, if you take everything into consideration, there is a much bigger

deficit than that. I will tell you why; because they are using the one-time, the

quick fix that they have been doing in the past three or four years trying to

balance out the Budget.

Of course, if you listen to the Auditor General and what she has stated in

the past, is that they are abusing special warrants. I asked questions today in

the House of Assembly with respect to special warrants, and the abuse that this

government has done with respect to special warrants over the past few years. We

have addressed this before, as a matter of fact, many times in the past. I

brought it up in the Estimates the other night and the minister, of course,

tried to address it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Before we get too far into the debate of the Budget today

in the House, and before too many of the members leave the House, there is an

important event happening today in the House in the life of one of our members.

I thought it would be appropriate to bring it to the attention of the House for

whatever action they deem to be appropriate to take in this regard. I want to

point out that the current Minister of Finance is reporting, with great delight,

that the previous Minister of Finance is today celebrating his 50 th

birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure what the current Speaker of the House wants

to do in recognition of that on behalf of the former Speaker of the House, but I

can say that the current Minister of Finance, on behalf of the previous Minister

of Finance, would simply like to say to him: Happy Birthday. I have been there,

I have done that, and it is not all bad. I can tell you that getting fifty, as

opposed to other alternatives, I would take turning fifty any time.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

To that no point of order, as usual, I would like to congratulate the former

Minister of Finance, and wish him a happy 50 th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Actually, I thought he was much older than fifty, to be

honest with you. I thought it might be his sixtieth. He looks much older. And

the way he handles himself is much older, too. From the stories I hear about the

minister, he acts much younger than fifty years old, I can guarantee you that.

Back to the Budget and the comments I want -

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have to set the record straight. The

Minister of Finance is in fact fifty, but looks twenty-nine.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The former Minister of Finance, the current Minister of

Mines and Energy.

The member who just spoke opposite is in fact twenty-nine, but because he is

folliculely' challenged, he looks fifty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we conclude, I think it might be appropriate to respond to this

unexpected piece of news in the point of order. The Premier made the mistake and

said the Minister of Finance. It is interesting that he transferred me to the

Energy portfolio, which probably in itself is a comment on how it has gone in

the last few years. As much as the hon. current Minister of Finance says he has

been there and done that, I want to say to him as well that I've been there

and done that too, and the Energy portfolio is not the worst in the world. There

is certainly much to be improved.

Like most fifty year old vessels, which we all become in time, we tend to

find that the timbers are creaking a little more, and they have dried out beyond

what they used to be at a younger age. I must say when I was young, I always had

the hope that I would some day be older and wiser, and today I say I have

achieved at least 50 per cent of my ambition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he achieved the older part for sure.

What I say to the comments of the Premier is that - when you look at the

Premier you will understand what I am going to say - God made a few perfect

heads and he covered his mistakes up with hair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: By the way - I won't go any further on that one. I will

get back to the Budget.

This government oftentimes are often their feet trying to tell us what great

shape the Province is in, what a great budget they are bringing down each year

over the past few years, but we addressed it and told the truth with respect to

the Budget. Last week I used the word trickery, and I was brought up on it, with

respect to the Budget. I maintain that this Budget is full of trickery and

slight of hand.

The government is all the time saying what a great job they are doing here in

the Province. They claim that this Province is leading the country in economic

growth. Can I comment about the Premier leaving the House of Assembly now, I

wonder? No, I can't.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) too long, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he has been here too long, I would say.

This Province since 1992 has lost 7 per cent of our population. Recently we

heard - and I hope the stats are correct - that is starting to stabilize and

possibly reversing itself. In actual fact, if you take into consideration 40,000

people leaving this Province, and the potential for those people in our

industries in this Province, they are gone all across this country and all the

other provinces, and the young people, the educated people, are the ones we have

to be most concerned about.

What we are seeing now with respect to the out-migration is the fact that

some of the parents of these young people are following their children, because

they are left home, all their family is gone to other provinces. Some of these

people are the industry makers of the future. We have to find a way to get those

people back.

We are falling behind the rest of Canada in job creation. If you listen to

the government and the Minister of Finance when they get on their feet, they say

we are leading the country in job creation, but the stats don't bear that out.

In 1989, there was a gap of 8.3 percentage points between the unemployment rate

of this Province and the national unemployment rate. That gap has widened to 8.6

percentage points in 1998, and widened further to 10.2 percentage points in the

first month of this year. If, in fact, we are leading the country in job

creation, God help the rest of the country, if that is the case. Our stats show

differently.

If you are talking about the economy in this Province and the factors that

one would look at to see how our economy is doing, we will know that the

government and the spokespeople for the government are not being quite accurate

in the figures they are throwing out to the people of the Province. They are

giving this false sense of security to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and that has to be addressed, and that is what I am doing here today.

We falling behind the rest of Canada in export trade, a very important factor

to be considered. In 1989 exports accounted for 30 per cent of the GDP, and we

are the leading export province in the nation relative to the GDP. By 1998 we

were at 34 per cent of the GDP but all other provinces had gained much more. We

had gained somewhat, but the other provinces had gained more. In actual fact, in

reality, we are falling behind the rest of the country. Three provinces had

vaulted ahead of us. Ontario's export trade went from 28 per cent to 52 per

cent of the GDP, Saskatchewan went from 23 per cent to 41 per cent, and Quebec's

went from 20 per cent to 38 per cent. Now here is the Province of Quebec doing

better than us, when you look at the GDP of that province compared to this one,

and that is the province that is trying to break up this country. We are still

falling further behind than that province.

Even the other Atlantic Provinces far outpaced our rate of growth relative to

the GDP. New Brunswick improved 8 percentage points, from 25 per cent to 33 per

cent. Nova Scotia gained 12 points, from 16 per cent to 28 per cent. PEI, the

smallest province in the country, I think geographically and population-wise,

went from 14 per cent to 26 per cent. If you look at those figures, how can the

ministers on the opposite side of the House of Assembly get on their feet and

say we are leading the country in growth? It is not reality, I say to the

Government House Leader. They are looking at the wrong figures. They are looking

at them through rose-coloured glasses, I say to the Government House Leader. If

he was sitting down and paying attention to what I was saying earlier, he would

understand why I am making these statements.

Child poverty -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible), they are all Stats Canada figures, not ours.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are interpreting them wrong, I say to the Government

House Leader.

Listen to this now. In 1989 exports accounted for 30 per cent of the GDP for

this Province. We were the leading export province in the nation. That was in

1989 when you people took over, when the Liberals took over the Province, Mr.

Speaker. By 1998 we were 34 per cent. We were up 4 per cent of the GDP in

exports but other provinces had gained much more, I say to the Government House

Leader. Ontario went from 28 per cent to 52 per cent. They went up 24 per cent

and we went up 4 per cent. A big whoop. Saskatchewan went from 23 per cent to 41

per cent. They went up 18 per cent -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: You talk about statistics and then you are talk about that

other thing, right? The truth of the matter is the gentleman just used the

figure from 1989 and then compared that to Ontario. Now everybody in this

Province knows we went through that groundfish moratorium. Everybody knows we

went this way. If you look at what we have been saying and what Stats Canada is

saying, all we are saying to you is that since 1995 we are picking up. The

manufacturing is going up, and we do have the largest GDP growth in Canada this

year. I mean, it is not our figures. He might not like it, but they are

Statistics Canada's. For you to compare 1989 to 1999, you know there is a

space of ten years in there. It is not even good stuff, Jack.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: There is none.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader just referred to

the space of ten years there. Ten years being led by this Administration. In

actual fact we are falling behind. We are not picking up at all, if you look at

the real figures as I am pointing out here.

Another factor is this. Some years ago I think the federal government

announced that we were going to have to end child poverty in the country by the

year 2000. Is that correct, the end of child poverty? Listen to this now. Child

poverty has declined in every other province since 1996 but continues to rise in

this Province. The Canadian Council on Social Development reports that the

percentage of children who live in poverty in this Province has risen from 18

per cent in 1989 to 23 per cent in 1997. That figure is even growing more in the

past three years. What we are saying is the alarming growth in child poverty

reflects the extent to which families and parents in this Province have fallen

into poverty.

If you go across this Province you can see the dollar is not going as far as

it used to go. Salaries and wages have been frozen for many years, even in the

civil service. You can see people now, doing the same job, taking home less

money in their cheques than they were taking home six and seven years ago

because of the various taxes. The income tax has gone up, the insurances have

gone up, and what have you. That is another factor.

We are the only province where the total personal income and total wages and

salaries adjusted for inflation have been stagnant since 1992. Just what I was

referring to. Well, almost. Another year or two it will be ten years. The

salaries and wages in this Province are stagnant.

Here is a very important one. The Minister of Finance in the Estimates

Committee meeting the other night referred to our own source revenues. If you

look at it in reality, there has been little or no improvement in the provincial

own source revenues as a result of the economic growth since 1990. What the

Province is trying to say is growth. Growth in provincial own source revenues

are due mostly, almost entirely, to increases in the personal income tax, which

went up as I just referred to, the new payroll tax that during the last election

and the previous election we were saying should be scrapped, that it should be

phased out over a certain number of years. The government, the Minister of

Health, the Premier and the Minister of Finance ridiculed our policy during the

last election with respect to the payroll tax, but what happened? I will tell

you now. What do we see in the Budget? They are now starting to phase back the

payroll tax, a tax that should never have been implemented in the first place, a

tax on jobs, a regressive tax, as I said.

I say to the President of Treasury Board that she got on her feet today when

I asked here these questions, and obviously she has someone in her department

taking care of her. Because she had little notes made there in her book to

expect questions on these special warrants. Obviously they were concerned about

it. They know full well they are abusing the special warrants. The Auditor

General said that $95 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: She said $95 million out of $136 million was in

contravention of the Financial Administration Act. I will take, Mr. Speaker, any

day the facts and figures over the President of Treasury Board, I can guarantee

you that. If she says that is in contravention of the Financial Administration

Act, you can bet your bottom dollar that the abuse of the special warrants is in

contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

The government, if they had any gumption, would stop abusing the special

warrants. I will tell you what they are up to. If you take the last month of the

year and they take $95 million and put it out in special warrants, and then they

say they have a balanced budget for the year, in actual fact they really have a

cash surplus. The most ironic thing about this is that last year on April 1,

1999 we passed through this House of Assembly - the Opposition opposed it, of

course - legislation ordering the nurses back to work. The government was saying

at the time that there was no money. They did not have any money but they did

not tell the people of the Province, basically, that they were putting through

$123 million in the month of March on special warrants.

Some of that money was not even spent and for some of it, it was four months

or six months later before it was utilized. Where is the urgency? Under

section

28.2 of the Financial Administration Act, the government is required to only

spend that money when it is urgent. Obviously government's definition of

urgency is quite different than my definition of urgency when they can put money

aside under special warrants to be used six months down the road.. That is not

urgent.

We saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs on her feet today. She announced $1

million or $2 million, whatever it was, on an emergency situations, basically,

for the repair of water and sewer caused by a major storm on the South Coast and

what have you. I have to say that I would agree with that - right and proper.

Now, if they had to have a special warrant for that, I could live with it, but

to take $5 million and put in the Municipal Financial Corporation in March, and

when July 31 rolls around, the special fund - $9 million still there - obviously

there was no need for that special warrant in March other than to manipulate the

bottom line of the Budget. That is what is going on, to show either a surplus or

a deficit, depending on what you want to do. They could have $95 million as a

surplus, but, no. This year they took out $100 and some-odd million to show a

$34 million deficit; but if you look at -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Bang-o. Thrity million dollars in a contingency fund that

they can use for whatever they want.

I would make a suggestion now, by the way, to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation. That minister has something like $17 million this year, $16

million for road work in this Province - not nearly enough. I have to say that I

sympathize with the minister, I really do. In actual reality, when you take out

the cost of fuel, engineering fees, and all the work that goes with it, you have

$12 million for actual road work. Now, we have $30 million as a contingency

fund. Let's take some of that and put it into the road work for this Province

so people can drive over the roads and be safe. We have one year; we have $30

million -

MR. TULK: Do you understand (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, let's do it this way. If it is $30 million, take

out $2.5 million each month and you still have the remaining month

proportionally kept back.

MR. TULK: Do you understand (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: I understand what a contingency fund is for this

government, I say to the Government House Leader. A contingency fund is put

aside in case of an emergency situation.

MR. TULK: Or something not foreseen.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not foreseen, okay, I agree with that, to a certain extent;

but, at the end of the year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, if they want to do that and don't want to touch

this $ 30 million until such a time that they get close to an election or

something, and start trying to buy votes, what about the $136 million that they

took out in special warrants this year? If they can come up with $136 million

last year and roughly around the same figure the year before, let's take $50

million out in a special warrant for the roads, I say to the Government House

Leader, and do something for a change in this Province and make the highways

safe. I know down in my district alone I need $3 or $4 million for roads,

easily, and that is right next to the capital city.

We have the Member for Baie Verte on his feet almost every day he is in the

House of Assembly with petitions for roads out there in Baie Verte. We saw a

demonstration out there yesterday and this past week with respect to the La Scie

Highway, trying to get the point across to the government how bad they need this

money, how bad they need the road work done. It is long overdue.

I am going to refer to a few other points with respect to this Budget and

what is going on here. This is the last year for the HST transitional assistance

grant from the federal government that injected $350 million into the government

revenue since 1997. Now, $350 million, that is going to be gone. Whatever

portion we had of that this year is going to be gone next year.

In the year 2002, the $850 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Roads for Rail Agreement is going to be ending a couple

of years down the road. You can mark it down - I think today is April 13 - this

Province is coming to a cash crunch with the Budget. I will tell you why. This

Premier is only concerned about the immediate future with respect to his

budgets, because he knows and everybody in this Province knows what his

objectives are, to be out of here in a year or two, I say to the Government

House Leader, to move back up along where he wants to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: To do what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, he is going to run for the federal government again, I

would say.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, starting out. He has to get a seat first, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Tobin, the Premier of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about the

Premier of this Province, the man who is supposed to be running this Province,

and a bunch of lemmings that follow the first one over the cliff.

I have to make this comment. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

was on here feet yesterday answering questions that I brought up yesterday

concerning the sportsplex in Clarenville. She said the Member for Bonavista

South gave a letter of support, so that is why they approved the $500,000.

I say to the minister: If the Member for Bonavista South wrote a letter to

her and told her to jump over a cliff, would she jump over the cliff, I wonder?

They only listen to us when it is convenient, and then they try to throw

something back at us.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island who -

don't let me tell the truth about that, I say to the Member for Conception Bay

East & Bell Island. Don't get me going on that one. I am going to be good

to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island because we are teaming

up on something else now, a major project for both districts. The Member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island and myself are teaming up on another

project. We had a meeting out in Portugal Cove not long ago concerning a very

important project for the area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't want to quote what you just said to the Member

for Conception Bay East & Bell Island because I don't want it on record. I

wouldn't want it to come against you down the road. He has relatives in my

district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. J. BYRNE: That member there. He has relatives in my district. They

vote for me, I can guarantee you that.

MR. TULK: How did they manage to vote for you, if they live in his

district?

MR. J. BYRNE: They live in my district. He has relatives living in my

district, and they voted for me.

MR. TULK: Oh, I see.

MR. J. BYRNE: They had signs up, and my picture in their windows.

Government has already spent a $350 million payment it received in 1997-1998

from the federal government for taking over the Coastal Labrador ferry services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Three hundred and fifty million that is already gone. Now,

that is $350 million over four years, so roughly $90 million a year. We won't

have that money next year. Also, the former Liberal government cashed in our

perpetual right to collect $8 million a year from Ottawa on Term 29 for $100

million; another $100 million spent that was supposed to be there for years to

come, for eternity basically - gone. This is adding up. That is three fifty,

eight-fifty - that is twelve - and another three fifty. That is $1.5 billion

there. It is shocking, looking at the short-term rather than the long-term. The

cash (inaudible) is coming, and who is going to be left to deal with it after

the next election? We on this side of the House are going to be left to deal

with it. We will be left to deal with this schemozzle that - let Hansard spell

that one - that crowd over there is creating in the near future, in another two

or three years down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What district does he represent? Carbonear-Harbour Grace,

is it?

MR. TULK: How long were (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will live long enough, I expect, long enough to see that

the Government House Leader will not be in that chair in the near future.

MR. TULK: Where will I be?

MR. J. BYRNE: You might be in a chair elsewhere, that he is striving for.

MR. TULK: Where?

MR. J. BYRNE: Up with your kissing cousins in Ottawa. Your name has been

thrown around for that and you know it.

MR. TULK: For what?

MR. J. BYRNE: The big S.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can tell you one thing. If you have other plans, if you

have plans to take over when the Premier leaves here in the near future, you can

forget that.

MR. TULK: I'm not interested in that.

MR. J. BYRNE: You're not interested in that? I hope you're not,

because you won't get it.

Forty-two million dollars this year from the federal government for health

care that was supposed to be put over four years, a little less than $11 million

a year, gone in a one-shot deal this year, and the Minister of Health says we

are gambling with this money, that the federal government had better come

forward with more money. I hope they do, because that is going to be another $42

million that we won't have next year.

Here is one of the kickers. The transfers from Ottawa will continue to

decline in proportion to population decline. The Premier of this Province sat

around the table in Ottawa when they changed the formula and did nothing to

protect our rights, our interests, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

federal member, the member in Cabinet representing the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, did nothing to stop that formula from being changed. He is here

now running the Province. I don't know where he is running it. I think he is

running it into the ground, more like it, and he is looking to go back.

Everybody knows he is looking to go back to Ottawa in a very short period of

time, and I wish him well. I hope he gets back there so we can get someone in

this Province, someone on this side of the House. Our Opposition Leader is going

to be the next Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no doubt in

my mind, no doubt whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen to this, now; this is where the truth comes out. We

have an independent person looking at the books of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador and, with no fear of repercussion or anything like that, she comes

out and says: The Auditor General drew attention to government's selective

reporting of deficits in her report. In the 1989-1999 Budget government reported

a surplus of just over $4 million, but the audited financial statements for that

year called the Consolidated

Summary Financial Statement indicate the real

deficit was $163 million.

Why is that? It is because of this: She advised MHAs and others who are

interested in the true financial position of the Province to refer to the

Consolidated

Summary Financial Statement which is an unprecedented and pointed

warning from the Auditor General not to trust the Budget.

The reason for that, of course, is the different boards. We have the health

care boards - I think there are ten of them or whatever - the school boards, the

funding with respect to the municipalities and what have you. All, in actual

fact, are factors in the Budget. We know they can have a cash surplus, and that

was just spoken about a few minutes ago, so we have to be very conscious of what

this government is all about.

I pretty well said enough for today. I think there are other people over here

biting at the bit to get up and say a few words on the Budget.

Thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few minutes as we continue the debate with respect to the Concurrence

Debate, as members on this side of the House make their comments in response to

the overall budgetary process and react to some of the points that have been

made in Budget 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to repeat some of the points that were made by

my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis. The member indicated that we are

the only Province to show a net loss of population. Of course, we have to keep

in mind that it has been some 40,000 people that, since 1992, have left our

shores. When you factor in the percentage, we are talking approximately 7 per

cent of a loss of population in approximately the last eight years. That is

evidenced, sadly enough, in the more rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All we have to do, whether we are a rural member or an urban member, is go to

perhaps most of our smaller communities and see the ravages of depopulation.

That is seen by examples such as closed schools and a reduction in services that

are provided to the citizens of our communities. A depopulation of one's

society is perhaps one of the saddest recognitions or saddest factors which, of

course, is part and parcel of the reaction of any budgetary process. The

question has to be asked: What can be done, and what can a budget do, in fact,

to address the very serious problem of depopulation? Are the answers found, I

say, when we review the various headings within the Budget? Are the answers

found that may assist Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as they continue to live

in our communities throughout the Province?

Again, 7 per cent of a population is a significant number, and of course we

see most of our younger Newfoundlanders and Labradorians going to Western Canada

in particular, in Alberta, to the cities of Calgary or Edmonton, or in the

northern community of Fort McMurray. We see them going to mining towns in

British Columbia, we see them going to large cities in Central Canada, and in

some cases to the United States. It is a sad reality when such a significant

percentage of our population must leave Newfoundland and Labrador in search of

employment.

People in all walks of life repeat this particular fact on a daily basis. It

is no big secret, but my guess is that 90 per cent of that 7 per cent is in fact

the younger part of our population. Our young graduates, young families, young

individuals and couples in our small communities with young children who seek a

greater opportunity by leaving for points west. That is an unfortunate reality.

We can look at the example I've just mentioned, the community of Fort

McMurray. There is no individual in this Province who doesn't have friends or

family members who have left Newfoundland and moved to Western Canada. What

happens when these young couples leave and have children of their own? These

young children become immersed and entrenched in these communities and it is

much more difficult for them to leave. Yes, it is true, we have some single

individuals who will come back to Newfoundland and Labrador in search of work,

in search of employment, but when young families and young couples leave, and

these young couples have children of their own in other communities in this

country, it is very difficult for them to again uproot and return to

Newfoundland and Labrador. Because their children have become immersed in their

own communities, their children are attending schools, they have their own

friends, they have their own activities, they have a life of their own, and

Newfoundland and Labrador becomes more and more remote in their own mindset.

I have used this example. For many young children who live in other

communities outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, whose parents perhaps are

native Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but for those children who were born in

Calgary, Edmonton or Fort McMurray, Newfoundland to them is in many ways like

England and Ireland to us. It is a place in history, it is a place of our past,

it is a place where we know the songs, we know the music, we know the folklore.

Other than their parents or their grandparents having been raised in

Newfoundland and Labrador there is no real meaning, there is no real sense of

identity, other than an historical one.

Therefore the question has to be asked: Are these young children going to

return when they are older, when they are adults? Are Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians today going to move perhaps to the British Isles, go back to

Ireland, where, in most cases, in terms of the vast majority of Newfoundlanders,

our ancestors came from? The answer is no. Therefore the challenge to this

government, and indeed the challenge to any government, is to provide a society

in which the residents of the communities, by choice, want to live here and stay

here, and want to work here and raise their families here. That is perhaps

ultimately the greatest challenge of any government, to provide at least the

opportunity to give its residents the option, and that is what is important. Not

to say to the residents of this Province: You must stay here, but to provide

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the choice that should they wish to move

they can. Obviously, we live in a free country, a free society. They are free to

move and we are free, as individuals, to seek our employment opportunities or

raise our families in other parts of this country, or indeed other parts of this

continent or other parts of this world. If we want the option or the choice to

stay in Newfoundland and Labrador, to stay in our communities, it is the

challenge of this government - I would say it is the duty and the obligation of

this government - to provide the climate and the jurisdiction in which we, as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, may exercise that option and exercise that

choice.

That to me is the sign of a government that is working, it is the sign of a

government that is doing its job. Ultimately it is the test, I would say, upon

which a government is based and judged. Sadly, if we use that as the test and if

we use that as the gauge upon which a government is judged or assessed, we can

reach only one conclusion when we judge, evaluate and assess this government.

Our conclusion must be that this government has failed in its mandate to young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who, if given a choice and an option, want to

stay here and want to stay in their home communities, and want to stay in those

communities in which they were raised, where their parents are, where their

friends are. That is the test, I would say, and again, if this government was

judged and assessed using that litmus test, we would see a government that has

failed in its obligation and its mandate to its very own people. Because sadly

we have too many of our people who leave, not by choice, but are forced to leave

their home communities in search of employment, in search of putting bread and

butter on the table, so that their families can be fed and adequately protected.

Just the other day I spoke with a young student who graduated after a

business degree at Memorial University, a four- or five-year course in the

business faculty, who very much wanted to stay here. Because of the student debt

this person is now being saddled with, in the amount of some $30,000 or $35,000

- which is low, I would say, compared to many individuals and many young

students who have been forced, in pursuit of post-secondary education, to apply

for and receive student aid. Compared with many, $30,000 or $35,000 is low. We

have all heard stories of students owing $45,000 and $50,000, but this

particular student, owing some $30,000 or $35,000, did not want to have that

noose around his neck for the rest of his life and realized that if that person

was interested in paying down that debt relatively quickly, that person had no

choice in terms of whether he should stay in this Province. That person had to

leave Newfoundland in search of employment in points west to try to receive an

adequate income that would allow that person to pay down the debt more quickly

than if he was to stay here.

That, again, I say is a sad reality. That is a sad state of affairs when a

young person who wants to contribute to this society, to contribute to this

economy and be a meaningful contributor to Newfoundland and Labrador, a place

that he loves, grew up in, had no choice, no option, but to go to Western

Canada, find a job in his area, and pay down a $30,000 to $35,000 debt. What

will happen with that young person? That young person who is filled with energy,

filled with the will to get out there in the workplace and really be a

meaningful contributor to society, what will happen with that young person? In

all likelihood, because of the work ethic that is within that person anyway,

because of the fact that person has been well-trained and educated in our own

University in Newfoundland and Labrador, that person will go to another part of

this country, exhibit great work habits, exhibit a great ability to be a

meaningful contributor to the workplace, and that person will be welcomed in

whatever workplace that person finds himself in. My guess is, that particular

individual will remain there. He will contribute to the workplace and the

community where he will go. He will pay off that student debt much more quickly

than if he were to stay here, and the likelihood of that person returning is not

great, I say.

That is what is unfortunate about the state of affairs that exist in

Newfoundland and Labrador today. Our young people are not given the option or

the choice to stay in the community in which they want to stay, to stay in the

Province in which they want to stay and raise their families. They are forced to

leave, to deal with their own particular and personal economic and fiscal

reality.

I say once again, the onus is on not only this government but I would suggest

any government to turn that whole sad state of affairs around so that a person -

whether it be a graduate, a young family, a young family with children - have

the opportunity to stay within a vibrant economy within their own native

province, with their own families, with their own friends, and live the lives

that they want to lead on their native shores. That is the challenge of this

government. When we use that as the litmus test, this government has failed

miserably because we continue to see our young people leaving.

The first statistic that was mentioned by my friend here, my colleague, the

Member for Cape St. Francis, was that since 1992 we have lost 40,000 people,

about 7 per cent of our population. It is a sad testimony of failure. It seems

to me that this government has not recognized its failure. Once again, we see

our young people having no choice but to leave the land which they love so much

and where they want to stay.

That perhaps, in my view, is the ultimate test of where we are going as a

society. Until that reverses, and until our young people by choice can stay, and

until we see - and maybe we will see some of our young people return in

significant numbers. Until that happens, we have nothing but shame to say to the

members on the opposite side, shame to the Budget which was handed down on March

22, just approximately a month ago. Until that situation reverses, we must stand

here and, as members of the Opposition, continue to hammer on these points and

continue to remind members opposite of their obligation and of their duty and of

their responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the Budget that was

presented here, I believe, on March 22. It is very interesting to sit here today

and listen to two of the former speakers talk about the number of people that

have left our Province and gone away.

I can only agree with my two colleagues that, to me, it is a shame. It is a

disgrace that we have people who have had to move to Western Canada to seek

employment. I am sure that probably yourself and many others in this House - I

don't know, since being elected in 1996, how many letters I have written so

that students who are buried in debt could apply for some debt relief from the

various banks. Some of these people are being driven crazy by bill collectors.

They have no mercy and they certainly show no mercy. When a Newfoundlander and

Labradorian is unable to find work, how do we expect that individual, either he

or she, to come up money to pay off student loans? I have watched it for years

and years.

I will always remember the day that a lady came to visit me in my office, a

single mother, who has twin boys, and this lady was actually being hounded by

debt collectors trying to collect student loans; a lady who could not find work;

a lady who, when she did find work, was paid at the minimum wage, and I do

believe in her case worked hours here and hours there but was barely existing on

what she was making, to survive, to pay her rent, and to support her two

children. This lady was being driven crazy by debt collectors from the bank

where she had her student loan. She asked me what I thought she should do. I

have too much respect for this hon. House to say exactly what I told her to do

with the bill collectors the next time they continued to call and harass her. I

told her to tell them that she would give them $5 a month, and told her that if

they were not happy with that to take her to court. If they took her to court, I

told her to take her little twin boys into court with her, sit them down and

look at the judge and say: Your Honour, this is all that I can afford to pay to

these bill collectors who, as I said earlier, were driving this lady crazy. They

were phoning her at work, they were phoning her at home, and it got to a point

where nobody was actually trying to collect money but in actual fact was

harassment. It was nothing short of harassment.

I thought it was ridiculous that a young lady who was working to try and

survive, who did not want to go on the social services system in our Province,

was doing her utmost to feed her two little boys and to pay her rent.... At the

end of the day she was fortunate enough, I think, to reach some kind of

conclusion, but every day, day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month

out, this lady was receiving phone calls, as I said, at home and at work. There

was no let up. They were constantly harassing this lady. Why? Because we in this

Legislature, and particularly this government, have not provided a basis for any

form of debt relief, number one, for a student in our Province; and even when

they are graduating from a technical college or university or trade school,

there is no employment for these people to go to in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I had calls only a couple of nights ago from a gentleman who has two of his

sons living in Alberta, asking me if there was somewhere I knew where his two

sons might find employment in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to

which I had to tell him: No, I am sorry, I couldn't.

That is a man who wanted to move his family back here because, as my

colleague from St. John's East said earlier, the day will come when they will

move into these provinces, they will be married, they will start families of

their own, and once they get entrenched in a certain area of our country they

are not coming back to this Province any more. So, what are we doing to keep

these young people who have graduated from our technical colleges in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely nothing.

I listened to my colleagues in this House, the Member for Bonavista South and

the Member for Baie Verte, repeatedly, in the last couple of weeks, stand in

this House and present petition after petition for paved roads which school

children travel over, to have these roads upgraded to a suitable conclusion. We

have watched very decent people, very quiet people in this Province, have to

take to the street and bar off roads. Why? As my colleague from Cape St. Francis

said, we have $30 million in a reserve fund. For what? For whose benefit? Is it

a slush fund that somebody in the government decides they are going to use? Is

that what it is for? If it is, then let's tell the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that is what it is for; but why not take some of that $30 million and

spend it on the roads in this Province where we have a need? We have a need in

Baie Verte and we have a need in Bonavista South, and I am sure members on the

government side have needs in their own communities. Why haven't we taken this

money and done something with it to improve our own situation in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? Is it such a big deal to be able to say we have $30

million in a reserve fund? Thirty million dollars for what? Thirty million

dollars that we can spend? Who are we reserving it for and what are we reserving

it for? At the end of my question, there is no suitable answer that we can be

given.

I listened to my colleague earlier today talk about the issuing of special

warrants in this hon. House. The Auditor General of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador points out that $95 million was allocated and spent improperly. It

was outside the guidelines of the act. Why does this government permit these

things to be allowed to happen? Why do we permit to let these things go on and

on? For that, there is no answer.

Again, we look at our hospitals. Our minister says: Well, hopefully,

hopefully, we are going to get some more money from Ottawa. A very interesting

phone call I had today from a man who has a son who lives in the Province of

Quebec, who told me that his son needed 6,000 hours of work in that community

now to apply for a full-time job.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. FRENCH: He needed 6,000 hours of employment in the Province of Quebec

to seek full-time employment.

MR. TULK: Six thousand hours?

MR. FRENCH: Six thousand hours, yes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That's right and that is what he needs. If the Government

House Leader doesn't believe me, I will give him the gentleman's name and

later on today he can phone him.

MR. TULK: No, no, I don't disbelieve you. You're saying that is a

rule in Quebec?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, his son needs 6,000 hours, a man who has gone there,

bought a house, and who is now raising his family in the Province of Quebec. He

needs 6,000 hours.

MR. TULK: In order to what?

MR. FRENCH: In order to now go to work full-time in the Province of

Quebec. That is what the gentleman -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, he told me this morning on the phone. As a matter of

fact, there is such a law because a few years ago, in dealing with the Province

of Ontario, Mike Harris said: Two can play that game. If you want to do that in

Quebec, we will do it in Ontario.

I don't know what the conclusion was, but they tell me a conclusion was

reached.

MR. TULK: Well, after that, everybody will do the same thing.

MR. FRENCH: Well, you know, maybe we should be doing that. We have a

group in Ottawa, a bunch of separatists who want to destroy our country and who

are now running the Province of Quebec. It is about time that we dealt with this

in a very open and a very forthright manner.

When this gentleman called me this morning, it blew me away when he told me

that his son was there and this is what he was told he had to have; a young

fellow who bought a house and is raising a family in the Province of Quebec. How

much protection are they looking for, or should we be looking for the same

protection in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? I shudder to think and

I shudder to wonder what will happen if we go to develop the Lower Churchill.

How much of this will be enacted? How much of this will they try to force down

the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? I hope there is enough guts and

enough gumption over there to stand up and say: No, we don't want this. We don't

support this and we are not signing a deal while these fellows are going to

receive these benefits. It is unfair to the people who live in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As I was going to talk about earlier, our hospitals; when we see people who

go into hospitals, I listen to my colleague from Ferryland day in and day out

raise questions to the Minister of Health and Community Services, never to

receive any answers, always a great spin to be put on it, but why? Why do we

have to do that? Why can't we look into our health care? Why can't we find

out what's going on?

I touched a few days ago on the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission

in this Province. They have raised the price of over 500 brands of spirits in

our Province. No tax increase. Who are we kidding here? Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro has been asked to raise an extra $80 million. Who are we kidding,

when I spoke to somebody in very high authority at Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro who told me that if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wants $80

million, the only place Hydro can get it is to borrow it. They don't have the

money to pay an extra $80 million to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So what does it mean? Does it mean increased electricity rates? Is that what we

are going to do? No taxes. You can call it what you like. You can disguise it as

much as you want. You can cover it up with paper and throw it on the shelf and

leave it, but at the end of the day, if there is an extra $80 million to come

from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it will have to come from us, the

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That to me is nothing short of

ridiculous. Why didn't we tell the people of this Province the truth? If that

is what we are going to force Hydro to do, then why didn't we tell the truth?

Why didn't we say to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro: We expect you to raise

the $80 million, and the only way you are going to raise it is through a tax

increase?

I listened yesterday to my colleague for Windsor-Springdale talking about

people in his district who are in urgent need of home repair. I'm sure there

is not a member in this House who hasn't had a similar circumstance, but when

I heard the gentleman say that one man, in his district, who had a heart attack

was told: Get up and fix your own roof, well, how much nonsense do these people

in our Province have to be told? How much nonsense do they have to put up with?

There comes a point in time when an emergency is an emergency is an

emergency. We can't just say to people any more: Go away, go lie down in a

corner, when there are buckets all throughout their house to catch the rain that

is coming in during a snow storm. This to me is nothing short of ridiculous, and

something should be done by this government. Something should be done to make

sure that we eliminate those types of homes in the Province. We are up day in

and day out asking questions, but of course we are not receiving any answers.

There is nothing laid on the table which says: Here is what we are going to

do to eliminate this problem or that problem or some other problem. I think the

student issue is a big one. It begs to be addressed. What do we say to our young

people who are finishing university or trade school, who are coming out owing

$40,000, $50,000 or $60,000, some of them? Because some of them are not

fortunate enough to have parents who can help them pay their way through

university. Any student who is in university today whose parents can afford that

is extremely lucky.

I had a daughter who went to university here until she couldn't get any

more courses, and then she was forced to go to the mainland. At that particular

time her mother and I were fortunate enough to be able to help her out, and she

graduated from a university in Nova Scotia. I often think about some of the

girls who I know who were with her. I think of a good friend of mine who became

a good friend of my daughter and who now lives in Calgary. She lives in Calgary

for one reason and one reason only: Because she can't get a job in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to help pay off her student debt. Her

student debt is tremendous, because she wasn't fortunate enough to have

somebody who could pay her way to go to university. She was a very bright young

lady who won some scholarships and she used those to offset her time in

university. Again, I have to ask: What are we doing with these people? Where are

we going? What are we doing to help them out? I have to say: Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, on those notes, I thank you very much for your time this

evening, and I will concede to my colleague for Windsor-Springdale.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just going to start off today and finish what I was saying the other

day when I was referring to a small sawmill operator in my district who was

having trouble finding a wood supply to keep his mine going, and also to keep

going a little manufacturing plant that he has making core boxes for the mining

industry, of which he is doing a great job. It has proven to be a good product

which his customers are very pleased with. This business might be jeopardized

because of the lack of resource that's been allocated to this operator.

Over the past year I have working with this gentleman trying to find a way to

secure a supply for him, and working with the minister. I realize, and I think

most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians realize, that the wood supply in

Newfoundland right now is certainly not as plentiful as what we would like to

be. There is a short-term problem when it comes to the amount of supply in the

Province today, because the wood supply is starting to replenish. Over the next

ten or fifteen years we could see, depending on the area of the Province that

you are talking about, some are ten years, some are fifteen years. It depends on

how long ago it was cut.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: In fifteen years we will have a great wood supply. In ten

years we will have probably an adequate wood supply, particularly in Central

Newfoundland, where the forest was cut about thirty years ago and is now growing

up. Within the next ten years this wood would be ready to be cut again. It

certainly would be a great asset to job creation in Central Newfoundland.

Hopefully our paper mills will be still there to harvest this supply.

Plus, the small sawmill operators need a fair chance at getting a wood supply

too. I see it firsthand when there are areas of the Province where the wood

supply is overaged. It is aged tree wood. The government says this wood is in

their inventory and it should not be in that inventory. This wood should be cut

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. HUNTER: I say to the hon. minister that this wood, because of its

age, will certainly blow down, die and be no good to anybody. This wood should

be classified in a special category where small sawmill operators can go in and

cut this wood and use it for the benefit of their businesses. I can show the

minister, if he wants to see, areas where because the paper companies said: This

wood is inaccessible and not viable for them to cut, so they will say: We will

leave this wood there. This wood will blow down, will be infested, and be no

good to anybody.

I think if some of these small operators want to go into these areas and cut

up this wood to make a living at it that we have to do everything possible to do

that. Because some of these areas with small amounts of wood in certain blocks -

some of the bigger companies do not want to cut it. They will leave it there and

this wood will be no good to anybody.

I have a gentleman in Springdale, Mr. Baxter Butt, who identified some of

these areas, went to the department and said: Can I cut this wood? The

department said: No, you cannot cut this wood because we are going to let this

wood stay because it is not acceptable. It is not viable for the bigger

companies to cut, but some day we may want to do something with it.

We cannot wait for "some day." This wood has to be made available

now to these small operators, because if they are going to survive in their

industry, then we have to do everything possible to give them a fair chance.

Even though it may not be viable for some of the bigger companies, it certainly

would be viable for the small companies which do not have to deal with high

wages and high cost of operations.

I am hoping the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and the minister

would look into this situation and try to help some of these small operators to

avail of this resource that is in blocks scattered throughout the Province, and

give them a chance to try to make a living in their prospective industry.

There is another area yesterday where it certainly interests me and that is

with our environment, particularly when it comes to the stewardship of our

wildlife habitat and conservation. I'm proud to stand here today and tell this

hon. House of the work that has been done by our Corduroy Brook Enhancement

Association in Grand Falls-Windsor, particularly pertaining to their walking

trail and the adjacent wildlife habitat to that trail. They have done a

wonderful job in enhancing the wildlife habitat there and working with Ducks

Unlimited and other organizations to make this wildlife habitat accessible by

the public but also giving the wildlife first priority over using this habitat.

It is such a beautiful job they have done there. I certainly encourage anybody

who comes into Central Newfoundland to have a walk on our trail and look at the

beautiful job they have done, and look at the wildlife that is there in this

area. It is certainly something to be proud of.

I got a call today from a lady who is doing a course in a post-secondary

education field and she was so upset because of the debt load that she has. She

doesn't know how she is going to pay this money back to the student aid

program. She has three children. She is living with three children, paying rent,

and cannot find a job. With this debt load that she has, she doesn't know what

to be doing. She is so frustrated and disappointed because she was encouraged to

get this extra training, encouraged to get an education, but now who is helping

her to fix this problem with that debt load? I don't see any other alternative

for this lady but to move. It is so sad that this lady has to take her three

children, uproot them from a rural community in our Province where there are not

a lot of opportunities. There are not many choices for single parents, with

their children, to try and make a living and try to sustain their living so that

they can stay in their own communities, bring their children up in an

environment in which they have been brought up, and which they want for their

own children. So, they are going to be forced to uproot and move to the mainland

to find work so that they can provide a living for their children and also pay

back this debt load that they have which is certainly hard on them. I sympathize

with these people.

Also, now we have another problem that is arising in rural Newfoundland,

particularly in one community in my district, with the decrease in the crab

quotas. A 30 per cent reduction is going to make a big difference to a lot of

people in small communities in Newfoundland that depend on the fish plants in

that area, particularly in the Town of Triton in my district where about 400

people work in that plant on a seasonal basis. I would say that 30 per cent,

probably 40 per cent, of the people of that town, in that business this year,

will not qualify for EI. I think there is going to be a lot hardship on these

families. It is going to be hard for them to find work to help them get enough

hours to qualify for their EI. These people, this year, are going to have to

depend on government programs, make-work programs to make up the hours they need

to qualify for their EI.

I think we are going to have a great challenge on our hands this year in

trying to help these families and these people, some of whom are single parents

trying to sustain a proper living and sustain a proper environment for their

children and families. I can see that problem arising this year. I hope that

something can be done on the provincial aspect to create more job creation

programs in the smaller rural communities of Newfoundland so these extra hours

can be made up and give these people a chance to qualify for their EI.

I will end off at that. There are other things I would like to say, but I

will get up again later.

Thank you very much. I will pass that to my colleague.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to again debate the Budget. Of course, in standing and debating

the Budget, I certainly cannot go past education.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) up in the gallery.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, the fan club, I might add, a very good fan club.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Not too bad. I am counting up there now. There you go.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, strangers. They admitted strangers into the gallery.

I don't know these people, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: All supporters.

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly would point to the gallery. These are parents

from Bishop O'Neill Collegiate in Brigus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Just two nights ago the board decided, in their lack of

wisdom I might add, to close down this particular school. Of course it is near

and dear to my heart as well, as the minister probably realizes, because that

was indeed a school at which I spent twenty years. The school itself has been in

operation since 1973. Many of these people in the gallery, I would say to you,

attended that school, and their children now attend that school as well.

I will get back to the vote the other night. The other night, of course,

there was a gathering of, I would say, more than a couple of hundred people in

Ascension Collegiate. It was at that time, after exhausting all means - and

these parents worked very, very hard to convince the board not necessarily to

keep it open in its present state but to convince the board to allow, at least

in that part of the zone, a K-IX system. The two buildings were there. It

appeared, through all of their presentations - and I say to you, you couldn't

believe the presentations that were given by not only these people in the

gallery today but many parents as they stood before this board and certainly

gave a good account of why this particular school should stay open; and it wasn't

to stay open forever. It was to stay open as a transition into the larger

system.

I will get back to the vote the other night. I must say, I attended the vote

and it was disheartening to stand with these parents on that particular night

and see a board of trustees - first of all, the first thing that I saw was two

trustees had to get up from that table, had to get up and leave the gymnasium.

Two trustees from our particular zone had to leave. They were asked to leave by

the board because they were declared, would you believe, in a conflict of

interest.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) legislation to straighten that out?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, the conflict of interest that was straightened out was

only to do with the trustees who had children in the schools; but in this

particular case both of these conflicts of interest dealt with having relatives

working in the schools. As a matter of fact, when it came to Bishop O'Neill

Collegiate there was no conflict of interest. These two trustees, I felt bad for

them. I felt bad that these trustees, whom people had elected - they had elected

them to stand up for the people of our particular zone. In our particular zone -

I say our particular zone because that is where I live - there were four

trustees who were elected to represent our particular zone, this particular

zone, and two of them could not vote as a result of being in a conflict of

interest.

Once that business was taken care of, then came the next fiasco which dealt

with twelve trustees left. These twelve trustees then decided, not all of them -

but then it came up concerning a secret vote, in front of hundreds of parents

who were very emotionally charged because this was a very important issue with

regard to their children. You cannot believe that these trustees, knowing how

important it was for these people to understand how their elected trustees were

voting, they voted to go, once again, to a secret vote. It was disheartening. It

is bad enough to have a decision -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. It is bad enough to have to take the closing of a

school, but to not know how these people voted. This follows through from the

original motion to the amended motion, to the appeal motion, all of these,

always under the secrecy of a secret vote.

I tell you, I must take my hat off to the parents who were there that night

because, I'm telling you, they felt like reacting in a most violent manner,

but they controlled themselves. They showed more poise, I would say, than the

trustees did themselves.

Just to get back again to that particular night, the secret vote was then

agreed upon. One of