May 14,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No.

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand today to call on the Member for Ferryland to publicly

apologize to the residents, staff and board members of the Hoyles Escasoni

long-term care facility and to retract insulting remarks he made in the media

about poor quality care at Hoyles Escasoni as compared with other privately run

facilities.

It is bad enough that he released a draft report described as

a work in progress by the CEO of the St. John's Nursing Home Board without even

letting them know or discussing it with them. I think it just shows, as he has

shown so often, his lack of respect for the boards, its volunteers and staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Someone has him on the run, Mr. Speaker.

The member crossed the line when he suggested that a work of

a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse at a publicly funded facility

does not compare to that of a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse at a

private facility. The Member for Ferryland insulted the integrity of the health

professionals and board members at Hoyles Escasoni when he publicly criticized

the quality of care provided to 400 residents by 700 staff, compared to that

being provided at privately run facilities in the City. He publicly insulted the

residents, staff and management. Now he should do the right thing, he should

publicly apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Executive Officer

of the St. John's Nursing Home Board has also expressed concern about the

unauthorized release of the draft document on the Organizational Analysis of the

Nursing Homes in the Region. Mr. Allan Bradley, the board CEO, said the release

of the document by the member opposite was "regrettable" and served no purpose

because the report is still very much in draft form. He said it has undergone

significant revision and has not yet been shared with staff.

Mr. Bradley went on to say, "The Board is concerned that Mr.

Sullivan has chosen to take much of the information out of context" - which is

quite unusual for Mr. Sullivan - and "that in particular, he has taken

statements contained in the report to cast the Hoyles Escasoni Complex in a very

negative light." The St. John's Nursing Home Board said it takes great exception

to some of the comments made by Mr. Sullivan that have reflected poorly on the

quality of care and service provided at the Hoyles Escasoni Complex. They said

caring and dedicated staff at the Complex have been done a great injustice by

these comments.

Mr. Bradley also pointed out that Mr. Sullivan chose to

highlight findings from the draft that he might have termed negative. In fact,

he continued, there had been many areas where progress has been made, of which

Mr. Sullivan is probably not aware.

I have learned - and I think this speaks volumes - that the

member opposite, the Member for Ferryland, tried to quietly apologize to select

people at the facility but that staff, residents and family members were

incensed at his remarks and his apology was not accepted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Really.

He made his statements publicly and he should -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Members opposite are laughing, but I

think it is very serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Let the record show, Mr. Speaker, that

the members opposite are laughing.

He made his statement publicly and he should apologize

publicly to the 700 staff and to the 400 residents who call Hoyles Escasoni

their home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Member for Ferryland showed no

regard whatsoever for the work of the people who take care of our older persons

and shows an obvious lack of understanding about the long-term health care

system. I have been told that residents and their family members are feeling

quite hurt by the member's remarks. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the

Opposition critic to challenge government every day, but to insult the staff and

the board members has to be disheartening to a group of people who I am sure are

doing the best they can to care for our seniors.

It is typical of the member opposite to try to make political

points for his own benefit but he should be ashamed for trying to do so at the

expense of staff and residents. It is time he realized that health is just too

important for this type of behaviour.

I call upon him to do the right thing, to publicly retract

his statements and to publicly apologize. I regret he is not here today nor

yesterday, but I think it is important enough, wherever he is, that he should

come forward and publicly apologize to the staff, to the residents and the board

of Hoyles Escasoni, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I respond this morning on

behalf of my colleague. How ridiculous this is here today. First of all, it is a

personal attack on the member, it is accusations about the member, and the

member is not even here. I will tell the minister that the member is out on

personal family business today. She should at least have had the decency to wait

till he is in his seat. He is quite capable of responding and he will respond, I

am sure, when he gets back. I am still staying with this view, that it was a

ridiculous statement today. It should not have been brought to this House of

Assembly. Some due process should have taken place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a rather surprising ministerial statement. Obviously,

members of this House have the right to bring forth public criticism of public

institutions. We do have a health care system that is publicly funded, that is

supposed to be open to public scrutiny. If members go too far, that is up to

them to deal with that.

I want to say that we all have a very grave concern about

ensuring that our public health care system is maintained as a public system,

publicly funded, and not marginalized and privatized like the home care system

has been done by this government, putting the situation in a way outside of the

control of the government.

I have the greatest respect for the staff and management of

the Hoyles Escasoni Complex. I think they do run a fine institution. They should

be supported and given all the support that this government should give to

ensure that it is and continues to be a first rate health care system. If there

are problems that are fixing to resolve, and if members of this House can help

to resolve that, then that is a good thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the

school construction and renovation plans to which the Department of Education

made a three-year commitment of $50 million in 1998-1999 and another $75 million

in 1999-2000, announced in December, are progressing well.

New schools have been constructed and renovations have

recently been completed throughout the Province. For example, students moved

into new, state-of-the-art schools in Hopedale and Rigolet recently and the

Premier will attend their official opening next week. In these two communities,

for the first time students will have access to physical education programs and

extracurricular sports in their own gymnasiums. These new facilities are already

being used extensively by community groups as well. Also, students are enjoying

the recent completion of renovations and extensions in Davis Inlet and Grandy's

River. Students will move into their new school in St. Mary's in September.

Plans are actively under way for new construction or renovations of schools this

summer in Nain, Buchans, Picadilly, Gaultois, St. George's, Blaketown,

Clarenville, Plum Point, Upper Ferry, Gambo, and Wesleyville. Design work and

site planning continues for the construction of new schools in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Roddickton-Englee, Burgeo, New World Island,

Lethbridge-Musgravetown, Arnold's Cove, Old Perlican, and Pouch Cove-Flatrock.

Of the $50 million committed last year, over $29 million has

already been spent and the remainder of the work will be completed, and money

expended, this year.

Of the $75 million, $21 million will be spent this year and

the remainder will be expended as the construction is completed over the next

two years. Plans call for all of these new schools to be completed by September

2001. If we are fortunate to have milder winters, this will allow for faster

construction time and we may see the projects completed even sooner.

The benefits to our Province's education system are clear.

Better schools enable teachers and students to access new technology and

learning techniques that may not have been possible in an older facility.

However, another beneficiary of the school construction and

renovation plan is the construction industry. This directly translates into jobs

in the communities where construction and renovations are taking place, and is

of direct benefit to the local economy.

Mr. Speaker, the progress to date clearly indicates this

government's commitment to the delivery of a quality education to the children

of this Province. We are committed to schools that are maintained at the highest

standard possible, staffed with qualified teachers and equipped with the most

modern technology and teaching aids, so that our children can access courses and

programs that will ensure that our graduates are able to compete with students

throughout the world for places in post-secondary institutions and the work

place of the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for

sending along the Ministerial Statement - be it ten minutes before it came down

- but again the report of school construction and renovations certainly is

common knowledge. It has already been released.

First of all, it is good to see that you are concentrating on

adding gyms and making sure that gyms are attached to buildings, that technology

rooms are there, that the curriculum is going to be able to be taught in these

new schools; but the question that I would have to ask, in light of the

information that I am getting around the Province, I am wondering if these

buildings are going to be staffed adequately enough to make sure that these

programs do get carried out.

As well, there are areas, I think, of St. Augustine's here in

St. John's where children are in a desperate state. They are in a school that

certainly needs to be addressed. Again, we cannot have enough of school

construction to cater to the reform needs and I would wish that we could action

all of the needs at this particular time so that we can move forward in reform.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are delighted that the government has moved quickly on the

construction project announced last year, particularly in areas where new

schools have been very, very necessary and long overdue - in Hopedale and

Rigolet in particular.

The school in Pouch Cove and Flatrock - it is interesting.

Some people have been fighting for this school for ten, twelve, fourteen years,

and for a long time there was not very much money for school construction until

the school reform issues were sorted out. Now that has happened, we are

delighted that construction is taking place; however, the big issue of today in

education is not school construction but in fact what is going to go on in the

classroom, and are we going to have the full benefits of school reform? Is there

going to be progress? There is a lot of doubt about that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: There is a lot of doubt about that in this

Province today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to update Members of the

House of Assembly on the significant offshore drilling activity that is taking

place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of building a vibrant

petroleum industry in this Province. There is a strong confidence and long-term

commitment from industry for offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador, making our

Province a national and international contender in the oil and gas industry.

Since 1995, Mr. Speaker, the call for bids in our offshore

area has resulted in approximately $500 million in exploration commitments, not

including the call for bids for this current year. This has been achieved by

making less than 5 per cent of the total lands available for bids to this point

in time. We remain confident that this year's call for bids of ten land parcels

totalling 1.3 million hectares will attract high interest for exploration again

in this Province.

We currently have five rigs operating in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Two development wells - an oil producer well and a gas injector well -

are currently being drilled on the Hibernia field. The Hibernia field is

currently producing just about 135,000 barrels of oil per day from its five

production wells.

The Petro-Canada, Mobil, Chevron, and Norsk Hydro Consortium

have drilled three wells to date, using the Glomar Grand Banks semi-submersible

drilling rig, and operations recently got underway at a fourth location.

The first well, a successful delineation well on the Hebron

field, encountered a very thick oil-bearing reservoir that flow-tested 3,500

barrels of 21 degree API oil per day. A second well, an exploratory well on the

South Nautilus field, has penetrated oil-bearing sandstones and a third

delineation well located at Ben-Nevis was recently completed. To date, no

further details on these last two wells have been released to the public.

Recently, it was announced that the glory hole dredging

program at Terra Nova has commenced. Development drilling at the Terra Nova

field is expected to begin once the first glory hole has been completed.

Activity continues to mount in offshore Newfoundland. On May 12 of this year,

the Glomar Grand Banks spudded an exploratory well at a site known as Brent's

Cove. This well is located five kilometres northwest of the Terra Nova field and

will take about forty-five days to drill.

Husky Oil, the operator of the White Rose field, is also

initiating a major multi-well delineation program. As of this April, the Bill

Shoemaker rig spudded a delineation well that will take approximately ninety

days to complete. The rig will also drill a second delineation well at a

location to be determined after assessments of results from the first well are

complete.

PanCanadian, another company, and its partners also spudded

an onshore to offshore well in February at Shoal Point on the Port au Port

Peninsula. Drilling operations are ongoing at this location.

Officials from the Department of Mines and Energy are

currently reviewing an application by Vulcan Minerals, a Newfoundland-based

company, seeking approval to drill an exploration well in the Flat Bay area of

western Newfoundland as well.

I am also pleased to inform the House that we expect to have

up to five seismic vessels operating in our offshore area this season. We expect

to see at least as much seismic activity as last year and perhaps even more.

Last year, 70,000 line kilometres of seismic activity was completed, which was

the most in history.

There has been a tremendous amount of exploration leading to

significant expenditures in our onshore and offshore exploration activity, but

this is just the beginning. As I indicated, less than 5 per cent of Newfoundland

and Labrador's offshore area is currently subject to licenses, and we believe

there are still large areas remaining in our offshore that will be of interest

to industry. We have already seen the interest in our offshore expand beyond the

Jeanne d'Arc Basin, our most prolific basin to date. With so much left to

explore, we are only just beginning to reap the benefits of an industry that is

a strong contributor to the economy and the people of this Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador is expected to produce up to 400,000 barrels of light

crude oil per day by 2004. This will then represent one-third of all the light

crude being produced in all of Canada.

To end of 1998, total industry expenditures in this area have

been $10.8 billion, which has resulted in significant benefits to Newfoundland

and Labrador, and Newfoundland and Labrador-based companies. We look forward to

continuing positive developments in this sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy. The statement I

feel is important, because it does provide the people of this Province with an

update on offshore drilling activity.

It is interesting to note that in a report that was prepared

for NOIA, the executive

summary of that report states many of the benefits, I

guess, that we provide in this region of the world with respect to offshore

activity. I would just like to mention just some of these.

The executive

summary states, in part, "This region attracts

investment because it offers several critical advantages for petroleum play.

East Coast Canada's strong reserve potential provides an excellent hunting

ground; its large potentially

hydrocarbon-bearing structures remain virtually

unexplored;..."

"A growing infrastructure base complemented by an extremely

versatile marine heritage allows for local supply of an expanding range of

products and services. Coupled with ongoing improvements to offshore technology,

this significantly increases the economic viability of regional projects and

sharpens regional industry's competitive advantage. Finally, its geographical

proximity to both North America and Europe afford relatively easy access (by

cost-effective marine transport) to two of the largest markets in the world."

It is important that as this very important industry to our

Province continues to grow and prosper, that members opposite and indeed any

government be mindful of the provisions of arrangements entered into between our

federal counterparts and this Province with respect to the benefits to each and

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and indeed, from a royalty and a taxation

point of view, to the Province generally.

In conclusion, I would like to state that the minister

indicates that to the end of 1998 total industry expenditures were $10.8

billion, which resulted in significant benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador

companies. Maybe at a later date the minister can provide an update by way of

Ministerial Statement, if he chooses, to perhaps be more particular and more

detailed into the exact benefits that we see as a result of the exploration on

our offshore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for updating the House on these

important developments; however, what we see happening really is a response of

the industry to the fact that in Western Canada the oil reserves are going way,

way down and this is the next level of exploration and the next most important

field for the oil companies to ensure that Canada continues to play a

significant role in the provision of oil.

The real challenge, however, is what benefits are going to be

given to this Province and its people as a result of this tremendous resource

that we, after all, brought into Confederation. The real challenge is between

perhaps St. John's and Halifax in ensuring that St. John's becomes the focal

point of operations of the East Coast.

Perhaps the Premier can give us an update on what progress in

being made in ensuring that we here in this Province are in fact the focal

point, the headquarters of operations for these oil companies exploring our

resources, and ensuring that our companies, whether they be providing direct

services or ancillary services, are the ones to benefit and our people will be

the major beneficiaries of our resource off our shores.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like rise and bring

the House an update on the negotiations on a Guaranteed Winter Availability

Contract between Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and, in fact,

between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Earlier in the week questions were raised by the Member for

St. John's East who asked for an update, which I gave at that time. I am

pleased, at the end of the week, to now confirm that in fact a Guaranteed Winter

Availability Contract has now been reached.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the agreement which has been

reached and negotiated will be put before the boards of both utilities,

hopefully within a week. We tentatively hope for around the 20th as a date for

consideration, and approved by both Cabinets, we hope, at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I will await approval by the boards before going

into greater detail but I can report at this time that the consequence of

putting in place a Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract - something which has

been attempted by successive administrations, quite properly, in this place -

will flow from that agreement alone an additional $1 billion of revenues to the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the course of the existing contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as part of this arrangement

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in its negotiations, has secured a

guaranteed access to the Twin Co. block of power currently used to fire industry

in Labrador West - I know the Member for Labrador West would be interested in

this - forever. Under the current contract arrangements, under current language,

when the contract now in place expires, that block would have reverted to

Hydro-Quebec. That is the language of the contract.

Mr. Speaker, we have added two new provisions: One, the block

reverts to CF(L)Co, which is owned 65 per cent by Newfoundland and Labrador;

and, two, the block must always, by contract obligation, be available for the

people and industry in Labrador West and Labrador (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the

GWAC agreement which will be finalized, as I said, within the next week,

together with the 127 megawatt recall which we initiated last March, have

together flowed from the existing Upper Churchill contract, before any

negotiation is completed on the Lower Churchill development, another $1.6

billion to the revenues of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, negotiations on the MOU continue. As I said

earlier in the week, in response to a question from the Member for St. John's

East, I don't expect those will close in the days or weeks ahead but I do expect

they will close and conclude perhaps during the summer. I hope it would be July,

or early August at the latest.

Mr. Speaker, I think an indication of the good faith of these

negotiations, although difficult work remains to be done, is we have just been

given notice that the Minister of Environment in the Province of Quebec has laid

before the Legislature in Quebec, notice that the Province of Quebec will amend

its own environment act,

an act which requires that all projects in Quebec be

reviewed by the Quebec Environment Act.

Such amendment gives the minister in the Province of Quebec

the authority to negotiate a single environmental assessment process under

federal legislation to expedite and facilitate, in an efficient way,

environmental review of the Lower Churchill project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is something that

Newfoundland and Labrador has asked for in a practical and pragmatic way, as it

is not likely to be efficient to have a Quebec environmental review, a

Newfoundland and Labrador environmental review, a federal environmental review.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge, in particular given that

we are dealing with a sovereignist government, the serious nature of the

Government of Quebec's consideration of this issue, that it is prepared to put

aside sovereignist so-called considerations for a pragmatic and practical

approach to a commonsense negotiation and a commonsense solution to the

question, the difficult question, of environmental review.

I would simply close by saying that I think it is the

intention of all parties that should a single environmental review proceed, it

would proceed with the knowledge of, with the collaboration of, and with the

partnership of, Aboriginal peoples in Labrador and in the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, that is my statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for

providing an update so quickly after questions were raised only earlier this

week on such an intricate agreement and, of course, such technical

documentation. Of course, all parties will have to wait and see the details and

the intricacies with respect to this agreement and indeed the benefits that may

accrue to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am somewhat surprised though that the Premier has indicated

there now will be an attempt to consolidate the process with respect to

environmental review. A process such as that requires, in my view, very close

scrutiny.

Our act is designed to ensure that the people of this

Province are protected. One must be very cautious, I would say, before there is

just a granting of a sharing of jurisdiction in any way with respect to

environmental protection. So we await, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly the details

and the intricacies, not only to the agreement, but in addition to proposed

legislation.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly the Premier's announcement of the final contractual

conclusion of the winter availability portion of the contract is very welcome. I

will inject a note of caution, however. It is certainly very attractive to see

the upfront benefits and see them nailed down the way that they have. The Twin

Falls power issue is also quite an attractive feature.

Although, a contract is a two-way agreement. You make an

agreement: you give something away, you get something, you make a deal. The

Province of Quebec has not been known to give too many things away, so we have

to have a look at the details and see what the arrangements are. Obviously there

is a quid pro quo. We get a contract: we get this, they get that. So let's look

at the whole deal. Obviously we have heard the most attractive parts today. We

probably ought to hear all the considerations involved before we pass final

judgement.

It certainly sounds very attractive. I will grant the Premier

this, that he certainly make it sound very attractive. We look forward to seeing

the full details.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources

and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to inform the House of Assembly of some changes

with respect to this year's recreational salmon angling season. As my hon.

colleagues are aware, this government introduced a two-year experiment in 1997

by issuing a requirement for a river specific licence for the Gander River.

The trial was initiated for two reasons. First, to determine

the acceptability of such a licence by the general public as a means of

generating revenue that could be used to fund river specific, enhanced salmon

management. The second reason was to improve the information received from the

licence stub returned to allow us to move toward river specific management.

Further, a preliminary technical evaluation has concluded

that the river specific licence has not, to date, provided significantly

improved data to justify its continuance.

In light of these two findings, I am announcing for the 1999

salmon angling season that there will be no river specific licence requirements,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Anglers will be allowed to fish on any

river within the Province that is opened to angling with a regular provincial

salmon licence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, while there will be no river

specific licences, we remain committed to implementing river specific management

measures wherever possible. By doing so, we want to ensure the conservation of

specific stocks while allowing our anglers the greatest access to the resource

possible within the bounds of conservation.

We have the most publicly accessible rivers in North America.

We have worked closely with our federal colleagues in the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that this year's salmon management achieves those

objectives and moves us along the path toward river specific management.

In closing, I would like to extend my appreciation to the

various volunteer organizations which have dedicated themselves to sustaining

our provincial watersheds. I would like to thank the Gander River Management

Association for their assistance with the pilot licence program and their advice

to both levels of government. It is appreciated and will continue. As the House

is aware, a Committee to address Outdoor Issues was formed this past year and

held numerous public consultations on wide variety of issues. The Committee took

advantage of this process to evaluate the first objective of this experiment.

Based on the input the Committee received, it is their opinion that, while the

anglers of their Province are supportive of river specific management, they are

not in favour of river specific licences as a mechanism to support this.

I would like to encourage the public of our Province to try

the angling experience of our salmon rivers. We have 60 per cent of Atlantic

salmon rivers in North American.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his ministerial statement.

I thank the minister for listening to the residents, especially the salmon

anglers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the message they brought forward to

the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal when he travelled across the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister heard it loud and clear. I

know at the meeting I attended in Clarenville, where many people came forward,

they regretted seeing - because they looked at it as river privatization. They

looked at it as not only the father being able to go salmon fishing, but many

times the father takes the sons with them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: The daughters also, I say, with them.

Mr. Speaker, while we look it as $10 extra is not a lot of

money, a lot of people realize that $20 or $30 is a lot of money. While we

should realize the benefits that our salmon rivers offer for our tourists, and

the new money it generates, I say to the minister we should also be ever mindful

of the fact that there are one hundred commercial salmon fishermen out there as

well who would like to be able to go and set their nets again, and enjoy making

a few dollars to put bread and butter on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Let us look at both sides of the salmon

fishery when we start implementing new rules and regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement in advance.

As the minister indicated, we do have the most publicly accessible waters in the

world. I think it is important that we keep it that way, and that is clearly

what the public of this Province wants to see maintained.

I think with the river specific license, a lot of people had

concerns that that was probably a first step towards privatization. Clearly the

people of this Province react negatively towards any indication of privatizing

the waterways of this Province. It is something that we as a population have

enjoyed throughout the generations, and hopefully will continue to enjoy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for

the Minister of Education. Since our committee did indeed hit the road, we have

been going around from place to place with a commitment to bring back to this

House the concerns of the stakeholders in education in this Province.

As we moved around to ascertain the affects teacher cuts are

having on our school programs, we have heard very troubling stories. Parents,

school administrators, teachers, and school councils have expressed their

disgust that this government has forced them to prove that there are problems in

the system, and that these problems are very real.

Minister, why is it necessary for school councils to take out

full-page ads in their local papers to show you that children are losing school

programs?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. Let me

say again, as I have said for the past two weeks, that I am listening. I am

listening to parents, I am listening -

AN HON. MEMBER: You did a great job on CBC last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I am listening to parents, students, teachers

and principals. In fact, I have had some excellent correspondence from some

principals in the system, principals who have taken the time to write me with

very valid reasons as to why we should consider allocating back some additional

units. I say "additional," because we have already put back 236 at a cost of

$11.4 million, as you know.

Mr. Speaker, these principals have come forward with some

very thoughtful suggestions and they will be taken into consideration when we

look at the entire picture for the Province, as to what impact the reduction of

182 teachers may have throughout the system.

As the Premier has said repeatedly, our concern clearly at

this point is for any impact in rural Newfoundland that would have a detrimental

effect on the quality of education that our students are getting.

We have a particular concern for rural Newfoundland because

in a lot of cases the boards have consolidated to the extent that they can.

While we have a declining student enrolment out there, it is very difficult

sometimes to be able to apply an allocation of teachers based on student

enrolment; which is precisely why we did not do that this time around. In fact,

we chose to ignore the fact that we had a 4 per cent decline in our student

population this year, as we have had for several years and will continue to have

well into the future.

We are being very thoughtful in our approach, we are being

very considerate in our approach, and we are indeed listening - listening to

parents, listening to the students, listening to teachers, listening to

principals, listening to education directors of the various boards throughout

the Province, because we want to hear what those concerns are. Where there are

legitimate concerns - again, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat - we will address them

by putting additional teaching units back into the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the

frustration of parents and students who are saying that the minister is not

listening. She did not hear my question, and I am only this distance away from

her. I tell you that if you are not going to listen, maybe you will look.

The Grand Falls-Windsor School Council Action Committee took

out a full-page ad in the Advertiser to prove to this government that

their schools are confronted with major problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Why, Minister, does the Grand Falls

Academy Primary have a 600,000 gymnasium with the possibility of no gym teacher?

Why is it that the school has plenty of computers but no technology teacher,

Minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the questions that the hon. member

is asking, I would ask the very same questions. That is why we are asking

questions; questions that we are looking to get answers to.

Again, based on the number of students in the system, we have

allocated teachers to try and ensure that they have the quality program that

they deserve and they need. If we are being told that there may be some impacts

on there - and we are being told that - then we will address those concerns.

Again I have to say that this will not be the first time that

we will have added back units. In past years when we have reduced the teacher

allocations based on declining student enrolments we have also had

representation from boards, parents, teachers, and principals, and we have

responded favourably; because when they have been able to show us that there

have been legitimate concerns, we have responded to those. We will continue to

do that because we have a commitment to a quality, sound, education in this

Province for our students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, school administrators and

parents say that their schools cannot accommodate classroom sizes of thirty to

thirty-five pupils, and students can no longer go on being denied access to

music, French, phys. ed., and computer technology. Educational stakeholders

again say that guidance councillor, Library Resource 1001 - that is totally

unacceptable.

Minister, can the people expect deficiencies in guidance as

well as in library resource to also be corrected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that

parents and students are worried. It is no wonder that they are worried and they

are going out to the caucus road show because of what they are hearing from the

Tory caucus as they get out on the road, going around trying to create a crisis.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Maybe this will happen, Mr. Speaker. There is a

possibility of this happening, Mr. Speaker. What happens if..., Mr. Speaker?

What happens if the sky falls in, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The issue here is that we have to be realistic

and we have to be serious about what is happening in this Province. We will

address those legitimate concerns, but the what ifs and the maybes and the

possibilities are something I cannot deal with.

We need concrete evidence and we will get that from meeting

with the boards that have been working very closely with us to make sure that we

have the relevant information to make sound decisions on, working within our

ability to do so.

We have been talking to principals and to teachers. These are

the people who know how the teachers are allocated within the schools, because

it is the principals actually who decide how the teachers will be utilized in

each of the schools, not the school boards and not the Department of Education.

So we are talking to all of these people, and we are listening.

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, bringing back concerns

from the people who are most concerned about education out there, they are very

much concerned that this minister is not listening. They are so much concerned

that Ern Walsh, the Principal of St. Francis Xavier School in Grand Falls, has

sent, through us, 450 copies of letters from Herdman Collegiate - 300-plus

letters - and these are from parents who are concerned about the loss of school

programs.

Will you take these letters, and all the information made

public in the Legislature, and consider this as proof - absolute proof - that

the education system is indeed hurting?

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

MS FOOTE: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will take the

letters. If they are letters from parents and students, I will take them and we

will make sure that each and every one of them is read.

Mr. Speaker, we are listening. We are hearing what parents

and students are saying, but we have to be realistic. We have to deal with real

issues, not issues that are being concocted by the members opposite as they go

out and try to get people creating a crisis of it, suggesting that there is a

crisis out there, out there trying to stir up problems where maybe no problems

exist.

We are listening to parents, we are listening to students, we

are listening to boards, we are listening to teachers, and we are listening to

principals. Am I listening to the member of the Opposition? Not necessarily, Mr.

Speaker, but I am listening to parents, I am listening to students, I am

listening to boards, I am listening to teachers, and I am listening to

principals, all of whom have something valid to say. We will certainly respond

in a very credible manner when we have identified the legitimate concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, perhaps I don't expect

the minister to listen to me but I wonder: Would she look just behind her, to

the Member for Humber East? Would you believe him? Because he stood before the

cameras yesterday, he stood before the microphones yesterday, and he said that

eighteen teachers out of that particular system is going to take programming

away from the children of this particular Province.

If you do not believe me, if you do not believe what I have

presented, will you believe him?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: I always listen to my colleagues in this

caucus, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: They always, always, have a valuable

contribution to make to this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Why, Mr. Speaker? Because each and every one of

them listens to their constituents. Each and every one of them brings the

concerns of their constituents back to the caucus, back to the government, and

we listen to what is being said.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will listen to every member of the

caucus over here because they do such a good job in representing their

constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Education. Madam

Minister, last evening on CBC television you put forward an accusation that

parents have been misled as to the impacts of teacher cuts on school programs.

Specifically, you said that you were afraid that a lot of parents were being

told things that were not true by teachers and principals. In other words, you

accused the teachers and principals of Newfoundland and Labrador, your front

line workers who toil daily in the educational system, of manipulating the

process, of misleading the parents of the very children that they teach.

At a parent's meeting last evening in Lewisporte parents took

great exception to the tenor of your comments and to that accusation about the

role of teachers and principals. These parents want to know if you are going to

apologize to the parents, to the teachers and to the principals for your

comments last night which they viewed to be very derogatory and insulting.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would never insult parents, I

would never insult students, because I understand where they are coming from.

They are being told: This may happen, there is a possibility this will happen,

we do not know but this could happen next year. Of course I understand where

they are coming from, and I appreciate every concern that is being expressed by

them.

I know, too, that it is the boards that allocate the teachers

to the schools. It is the principals that determine how these teachers will be

utilized. We need to work together as a team to determine whether or not there

are enough teachers in the system to carry out a quality education program. That

is exactly what we are doing by meeting with the education directors of all of

the school boards, by discussing with principals - and I have had discussions

with principals -, and by having discussions with teachers. I have had those as

well. They are as concerned as I am, and we are trying to get to the bottom of

this to try and determine where there are legitimate needs. Let me repeat again,

where there are legitimate needs, those needs will be met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Waterford Valley.

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

I want to say to the minister that I attended all of the

sessions conducted by this caucus but one, and never at one of those was there

ever a suggestion by any member on this side as to what might happen. We were

there to listen. I suggest that you should take the same attitude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the people who were talking

about the problems of the system are parents and teachers, and they are putting

forward their concerns. For example -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: For example, Lewisporte Primary. Five

years ago they had twenty-four teachers. They have had zero drop in their

population. They have nineteen teachers this year. That will be reduced to

seventeen teachers next year. That is seven teachers lost over the last five

years with zero drop in the enrolment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, do you have suggestions

for the parents at Lewisporte Primary as to how they are going to accommodate

that significant loss in their teachers for next year? Will it be in the music

program? Will it be in the learning resources? Will they drop their French

altogether? How will they accommodate it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only individual treating

seriously the issue of education and the allocation of teachers in this House

today is the Minister of Education of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will

note, and I hope that those who are covering the House will note, that we have

just heard the Member for Mount Pearl say there has never ever been a suggestion

by anybody on that side of the House of what might happen. That comment followed

a suggestion about three minutes ago - one's memory should be able to retain

that - of a suggestion by the member who heads the task force that there might

not be a gym teacher in Grand Falls, and there is a possibility there will not

be a gym teacher. Then, shortly after breathing the words: We have never

suggested what might happen, the Member for Mount Pearl gets up and asks: Will

there be gym teachers, will there be music teachers, will there be sunshine?

Mr. Speaker, these members opposite are not interested in

education. They are interested in playing political games, stirring up people's

concerns, trying to score political points, not trying to work seriously and

soberly with developing a quality education system for the students of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a minister that has the concern, she has the will,

she has the intelligence, and she has the mandate to make sure we have a quality

education system. She is listening, and where necessary this minister, with the

full backing of this government, will act in the interest of our students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The Premier misses the point. We are repeating in this House

the concerns of parents. We did not initiate those concerns, we merely bring

them to the House as it is our mandate to do.

I want to ask the minister this. Parents of special needs

children have very special anxieties. To quote a parent in yesterday's

presentation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to read a sentence -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to read a sentence by

a parent of a special needs child, who said: "services for special needs

children have been cut to a point where their very safety has been jeopardized."

That is what parents are saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, during the election the

Premier and the President of Treasury Board in Grand Falls promised a round

table discussion involving all the stakeholders dealing with special needs

children -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: When will that round

table discussion take place? Will she do more to assure that the access to

services will be on a service for needs basis, not on the present criteria that

is being used?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if any one needs special attention

in our Province it is those students with special needs. Let me say again, this

government recognizes that we have children with special needs in our system. In

fact, because of that recognition we have more special education teachers in the

system then ever before. That number will only increase as the need increases.

We also have to be realistic. As much as we would like to be

able to give every student with a special need a one-on-one, that is not within

the possibility of our financial means. We will work very closely with the

schools, certainly through my division of student support services, to ensure

the needs of our special needs children are being met. Because while all

children are important to us and we want to make sure that all children get a

quality education, we have to be really cognizant of the needs of our special

needs children.

We had a meeting, in fact, in Gander. Officials from my

department were there, the Member for Gander chaired the meeting, and there was

a representative from the school board there. We had a discussion about special

needs. Coming out of that meeting, when there was representation from parents of

Grand Falls-Buchans there as well, we subsequently had another meeting with the

Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and the Member for Gander. As I mentioned

earlier, my caucus colleagues are concerned and are there and ready and

listening to their constituents.

We now are looking at a round table, as was committed to, in

Central Newfoundland, again, based on a request by the parents of special needs

children and in response to the members opposite, particularly the Members for

Grand Falls-Buchans and Gander, to make sure that the needs of the special needs

children are being met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for Waterford Valley.

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

I thank the minister for answering. I regret the difficulty

that I had with getting the questions put forward, with the interruptions and

the unwillingness to listen on behalf of the caucus on the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Obviously, they do not want to listen to

special needs parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon as well,

a representative of the school board in Grand Falls -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Yesterday, in Grand Falls-Windsor, a

member of the school board asked a question as to why there are so many

vacancies in school trustees in this Province. There are seventeen vacancies

across the Province, and there are three in that particular board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: That member of the board wants to know

what you are going to do about filling the vacancies -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: What is your government going to do to

ensure that the number of school trustee vacancies will be filled, and the

number that we need in our school system will be addressed in a timely basis?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I guess the vice-chair of that

school board did not have an opportunity to have a discussion with the chair of

that school board, because we met with them just last week. The very same

question was asked, and I let them know where there were elections previously,

where the position was actually filled and a school trustee has since resigned,

there will be a by-election called and I expect it will be early in the fall.

The other instance, where the election was held previously

and where no candidate came forward to offer their name for election, we will

fill those positions by appointed as required under the act. Recommendations

have been made and accepted, and the boards will be notified of that in the very

near future.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this morning are for the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology. We sold the Marystown Shipyard to Friede Goldman for $1, a

yard which had a market value of some $55 million and a replacement value of $85

million in today's dollars.

I would like to ask the minister today why it is not possible

for us to see a copy of the contract which was signed between the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador and Friede Goldman, why a copy of that particular

contract cannot be tabled in this hon. House, and why the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador are being denied the right to see such a contract.

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is - and I have outlined this to the hon.

member, I think, on several occasions, as late as less than twenty-four hours

ago - that the legal advice that we are being given is that this is a commercial

project, subject to confidentiality agreements which many times occur when you

sign a contract with a private company versus between governments to

governments.

That was a part of the agreement when we reached it. We knew

that when we signed a commercial agreement there would be a confidentiality

clause; but, as I clearly pointed out to the member yesterday, when we signed

this, we have, in fact, answered all of the questions that have been put to us

about the contract. If there are other questions that the member has, I can

certainly talk to the company about it.

We have already met with the union and we have met with other

staff down there. In fact, we have met with the municipal councils about this.

All of the questions they have put forward to us - with every question from

equipment on - we have endeavoured to answer all of them and, to date, have done

so. We have asked them, if they have further questions, to please forward them

to us and we will speak to the company to get their permission to give them the

information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that it is my understanding that when

this contract was being negotiated there were also negotiations under way about

removal of equipment.

It is also my understanding that there was a letter of

understanding signed between the then minister and Mr. J. L. Holloway, and there

would be no equipment removed from the Marystown Shipyard for at least five

years. Can the minister confirm that such a letter of understanding exists? Can

she also confirm that this letter of understanding has not been incorporated

into the contract? And, if not, why not?

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand where this

question is coming from. I will check about a letter of understanding but I have

to say that no equipment has been removed. As a matter of fact, this company has

made very, very substantial improvements to the tune of over $1 million for one

piece of equipment. To the contrary, the company has been putting new equipment

into the shipyard, not removing equipment.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to correct the minister. I did not say that

equipment had been removed. I never said it had been removed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: I never said any such thing, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have some -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I do not need protection from anybody over

there, believe me. As the saying goes, I am big and ugly enough to look after

myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, my next question is again to the

minister, on redundancy pay. It also came to my attention when we were in

Marystown and met with the company -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no member should be allowed

to make reference to any member in this House as being big and ugly. I ask the

member to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the Premier

that I can't do anything about my size.

My next question is to the minister and it relates to

redundancy pay. This is a concern that was expressed to us, I say to the

minister, by the union. We are looking for clarification on who is liable for

the redundancy pay. Would it be the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, or

would it be Friede Goldman?

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, my understanding would be whatever

the collective agreement has been negotiated with, and the clauses in the

collective agreement would certainly cover redundancy pay.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Notices of Motion. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear you when you said

Presenting Reports. If I could have leave to present the Hydro report to the

House, as per requirement in the legislation, I would present it by leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to present the report

for the Hydro group of companies, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for the year

ending December, 1998. I would recommend that members obtain a copy and peruse

it because it is the report that shows one significant change from last year.

That is, that it reflects increased sales to Hydro-Quebec in 1998 which resulted

in $29.9 million of additional energy sales revenue as a result of the

negotiation of the recall provision last year.

Of course, now today we heard the Premier discussing the

Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract. You will see the financial implications

of that reflected in the report that will be tabled around this time next year.

I commend to all members the annual report of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro for 1998.

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a petition

signed by 1,710 people in the Province of Newfoundland, mainly women in the

public sector, and I hope the President of Treasury Board is able to listen and

respond to the petition. The petitioners say as follows:

WHEREAS the government of this Province, in its capacity as

an employer, has failed to address anomalies in pay resulting from an

unsystematic approach to classification review during the implementation of pay

equity; and

WHEREAS many of these anomalies have been known to the

government for many years;

now therefore we, the undersigned, call upon

government to meet immediately with representatives of the Newfoundland

Association of Public Employees to identify solutions for this situation and

then immediately implement these solutions.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is undertaking the

implementation of pay equity in the public sector. It is something that has been

fought for, for many, many years by the public sector workers because of the

anomalies in pay between women's pay in women dominated classifications and the

pay for work of equal value in positions that are mainly occupied by men.

The first agreement on this was made with the previous

government back in 1987, I believe - or July of 1988 I think perhaps is the

correct date - to implement pay equity in the public sector. We all know that it

took a fair bit of time and they were going through sector by sector to do the

review to try and achieve a pay equity so that work of equal value was

attracting the same pay scales.

We know that this has been a great historic anomaly. We know

that social justice and equity between men and women required that these jobs be

looked at carefully to ensure that there was not a built in systemic

discrimination against women in our workforce, and great efforts and strides

have been made; however we do have, resulting from this process, and perhaps the

date of the process starting, certain anomalies that have occurred.

For example, in the classification system now, a Cook I is

paid more than a Cook II, and a Food Service Worker I is paid more than a Food

Service Worker II, which is certainly an anomaly. The reason that these

particular types of anomalies have crept in was because the Cook II position and

the Food Service Worker II position were male dominated positions and were not

included in the classification review that took place.

The result is that the Cook I position, which had mainly

women in it, was looked at, was changed and upgraded, and the pay equity

formulas were put into place that gave an increase for the Cook I position but

the Cook II position was not looked at because at that time it was mainly a male

dominated classification and therefore was not considered.

Now, of course, over time, these positions have changed and

there is a greater number of women in these positions - women and men in these

positions perhaps more equal - and the inequities of that situation are very

evident.

Mr. Speaker, we must move quickly to deal with this

situation. I know government has an interest in resolving it, but this is a

particularly difficult bureaucratic problem that requires a great deal of effort

to fix. It also requires a stepped-up effort, because this kind of inequity, the

longer it continues, the more discontent is bred amongst the workforce, the more

difficulties workers have in justifying changes in jobs, applications for jobs,

moving into higher paying jobs, advancing with their careers. All of these

things are held up and affected by a failure to properly implement a pay equity

system.

Part of it has to do with the classification system going

back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, and part of it has to do with the

anomalies of when these classification reviews started, but it does require an

extraordinary effort and an extraordinary concentration of effort by government

to resolve these situations immediately. I am asking, and the petitioners are

asking, that government commit itself to a speedy resolution of these problems -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - having all classifications reviewed and

evaluated accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise this morning and respond to the petition

by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a good record in dealing

with pay equity. Pay equity is a very important tool in collective bargaining

for this government.

We have developed a system over the years that deals with

gender equity. Government has fully supported its pay equity initiatives. I

might add that government has directed substantial funds towards eliminating any

gender discrimination in its job evaluation tool and pay practices.

Is the pay equity system, is the re-classification system,

perfect? No, we do not think so, and there is always room for improvement. What

I would say to you at this point is that this government fully supports pay

equity and is very aware of gender discrimination and fully supports the job

evaluations coming from classification requests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to support the petition presented by the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. When government were undertaking reclassifications

of jobs, as the member said, these anomalies did grow. Statistics show that for

every a dollar a man makes, a woman makes sixty-seven cents. When the man goes

home at the end of the day and says: Another day, another dollar, a woman can

say: Another day, another sixty-seven cents.

Because of these anomalies the jobs should be carefully

examined to eliminate this disparity. The President of Treasury Board says that

government has allocated funds and does support pay equity. While efforts have

been made to eliminate pay disparity, because of the anomalies that have

occurred in the reclassification pay disparity does in fact exist. Because most

of the persons who are affected by this disparity are women. It is because of

this that I ask the President of Treasury Board to have another hard look at it.

It will take quite a bit of work but in the end it will be worth it, because it

will bring the women equal to the men.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my colleague

the Member for Humber Valley. It is a petition signed by 112 residents of the

community of Great Harbour Deep; 112 of 133 eligible voters, or 84 per cent of

the voting population of that particular community. The petition reads as

follows:

To the hon. the House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the District of Humber Valley of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

WHEREAS we the undersigned residents of the community of

Great Harbour Deep in the District of Humber Valley do hereby petition the House

of Assembly to assist the residents of Great Harbour Deep financially in

relocating to a community of each family's choice.

Here we have, Mr. Speaker, a petition. I do not plan to say a

great deal about that. I am sure the hon. the member, after his times of trials

and tribulations have passed, will return to this House, and speak to this

petition himself.

The petition is from the residents. It is not initiated by

anyone. It has a covering letter -

PREMIER TOBIN: Properly designed and constructed too, I

might say.

MR. MERCER: Properly designed and constructed, because it

is done under the auspices, I'm sure, of the very able member for that

particular district.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this request was made to me. I

talked to the Member for Humber Valley yesterday and I think the request was

made just a couple of days ago. I think it speaks volumes of that particular

member who in this particular time of his, as I say, trials and tribulations,

has acceded to a request from his constituents in the community of Great Harbour

Deep to have this presented forthwith. I think it speak volumes about the

character of that individual, and it gives me great pleasure to be here today

standing in my place on his behalf.

I would simply add that the covering letter is from the Town

Council of Great Harbour Deep. It is signed by the mayor, Ada Glynn, of that

particular community. As I indicated, it is signed by 84 per cent of the

eligible voters of that community who feel that they would like to be relocated.

They do hereby ask this House of Assembly, and through it the government of this

Province, to provide them with financial assistance so that they may relocate to

communities of their choice elsewhere within this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to note the petition put forward by my colleague. I

know some of the people who live in that particular community. Some of them are

personal friends of mine. I note that they ask for assistance, and do note that

this is the second or third occasion when the concept of moving from the

community to one of the other communities in White Bay or some other part has

been under discussion. It is not the first time it has been discussed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Of their choice. That may not be, of

course, Sop's Arm or any of these areas. They will make that choice. Mr.

Speaker, we on this side - although I can only speak for myself, we have not

discussed the issue with out caucus - but the people in that part of the

Province have had discussions on this matter over some years.

I ask the government to look at the wishes of the residents

there. However, also be sensitive to the people who have long-standing

traditions, the other 16 per cent who would be adversely affected, who may not

wish to participate. Be a facilitator but do not get involved in pushing the

process unnecessarily.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition to the House and the petition

reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been

upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this

section of Route 235 is in such a terrible

condition that vehicles are being damages, including the school buses serving

the schools in the area, and schoolchildren are finding their daily trips over

the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the 5 kilometres of Route 235 from

Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present this petition again. By

the look of the names and the way they are printed there, in such fine writing,

it is obvious that some of those names are signed by students that are

attending, I would think, Matthew Elementary in Bonavista. It is a plea from the

students and from parents in the area to ask that their five kilometres of road

leaving from their communities into the Town of Bonavista be upgraded and paved.

At public meetings we have held down there - I should say

that the parents held - they have come forward and asked that if we did not have

enough money to complete the five kilometres of road, maybe we can do the worst

sections. That will certainly be acceptable to them.

This particular road was built in the 1970s. The

section of

roadway to which they refer, the worst part of the five kilometres, measures

about two and a half kilometres around a pond. At that particular time, if you

talk to the engineers today working with the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, they will be very quick to point out that the road that was

built at that time was built in far inferior ways to what you would consider

normal road standards today. There is a lot of sand and mud used in that

particular roadway. There was no rock used there. There was no under base used

there in order to build the road up and give it the stability to withstand the

heavy traffic that is travelling over this particular roadway today.

As a result of that, the road has deteriorated to the extent

that something needs to be done with it. Work has been needed there for the past

number of years and the people have been very patient. They are saying now: The

road is gone so far that we need something done and we need it done now.

It is a situation where the school teachers, the school

principal, and the bus operators have come forward, travelled up to Newmans

Cove, met with the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister and myself,

and put forward a plea. They asked that other roads in the area be given lesser

priority and that this particular

section of roadway be looked at.

In fact, the constable who usually occupies the chair at the

back of the room here where the Sergeant-At-Arms is sitting said to me: I am

after hearing your petition so often, and I believe in your cause so much, I am

going to give the first $10 towards it.

It shows that when you talk about something often enough,

hopefully people will believe in the cause, and hopefully people will take it

seriously, because it is a serious petition. That is why I stand here today to

present their views and opinions.

I realize that there is not a lot of money brought forward

this year. There is something like $16 million being brought forward in the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation for capital works, road repairs

and upgrading. Back in 1989, the Budget brought forward $49 million. There is

certainly not going to be a lot of roadwork. When you look at the cost of

asphalt, and you look at the cost of doing work, there is not going to be a

whole lot to be able to be done with the need that is out there with $16

million. I think the rule of the thumb is something like $100,000 per kilometre

to upgrade and repave.

We are asking for two and a half kilometres. They would like

to get five kilometres upgraded and paved but they would settle for two and a

half kilometres. I do not think that is expecting too much, when you consider

that the schools have been closed in the area and people were expected to travel

by bus into Bonavista. They have to go there to access government services, they

have to go there to access health care, they have to go there to shop.

Even the transport truck drivers have threatened not to use

that particular roadway -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - because of the damage that is being

caused to their vehicles. It is a serious petition, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that

government would lend their support to looking after the problems and correcting

them.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Government House Leader is in a hurry to get home for the

weekend. I say take your time.

AN HON. MEMBER: As well as several more people on this

side and on that side.

MR. MANNING: Including myself, Mr. Chair. I want to be

home for my son's birthday party later on this evening, but I think we have some

urgent matters to discuss here this morning.

The President of Treasury Board is here again this morning.

I'm very pleased to see her. Maybe we might get some answers and just some

clarification on some points in the Executive Council Estimates.

There is certainly one, I note, in the Premier's Office -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I am going to read from it today.

In the Premier's Office we had a budget for Transportation

and Communications last year for $145,000. It is on page 16, 2.1.01.03,

Premier's Office. It had a budget for $145,000 that was revised for $165,000,

Mr. Chairman, and now this year's estimates are again $145,000. So I would just

like to know why the extra $20,000 is on the Premier's Transportation and

Communications budget.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Did that cover all of his travel, or was

there monies from other budgets?

MR. MANNING: No, I am sure there is money from other

budgets for other travel, Mr. Chair, but I just want to question that one in

particular.

MR. FRENCH: It covers his parliamentary assistant.

MR. MANNING: Yes, it covers his parliamentary assistant's

travels. That would be interesting. We may be looking at a larger increase now

since you have been appointed to the new committee, Mr. Chair. I am sure you

will be travelling throughout the Province as a member of the `meetloaf'

committee. I am sure you may need an increase in your budget for that. That is

certainly one of the concerns that is brought up.

Also, we have on page 17, 2.2.03, Salaries in the Social

Policy Analysis section. We had a budget of $161,400 which was revised to

$114,000. I am just wondering, from the salaries point of view, was there

someone moved? Were there numbers in the social policy sector reduced? It went

from $161,400 down to $114,000 on salaries, and this year we have budgeted

$157,300. So I am just wondering why the discrepancy is there. Why the reduction

from last year? Then again, the budget is almost up to what it was last year. I

am just wondering exactly what happened there.

Another interesting one I found on page 17 was under Offshore

Fund - Administration, 2.2.04. We had Professional Services that were budgeted

at $37,300 for the last fiscal year and that were reduced to $15,000, and this

year we have a budget of $37,300. I am just wondering why the discrepancy is

there also.

Also there are a few other concerns I have, such as on page

18, 2.2.06, Advisory Councils on Economic and Social Policy. In the

Transportation and Communications budget, $78,500 was budgeted last year which,

when revised, became $20,000. This year we have once again budgeted $78,500.

I will leave those few questions just to start the

discussions off this morning in a pretty low key. I am easing my way in this

morning. I just wanted to ask the President of Treasury Board those few things.

Maybe she will answer those. We will see where we go from there.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's for his questions, but before I respond to his

I would like to respond to the Member for St. John's West who asked me a couple

of questions yesterday that I have been able to get answers to this morning.

One of these was on the Opening Doors program. The member

asked me: How many individuals are employed under this program and how many are

full-time, part-time and permanent? There are fifty-seven positions and all are

full time. As people move out of the program, others move in from the waiting

list.

The other question on the Opening Doors program was: Where

are these people employed? These individuals are employed at various

classification levels and are located throughout government, throughout the

Province. However, as you know, the program operates from this building, and

most of them are located in St. John's, as I said yesterday.

The next question was on the French language program. The

question asked by the Member for St. John's West was: How many people are

employed under this program which has a salary allocation of $278,200?

The answer to that question is that the program has a

full-time staff compliment of eleven positions including a manager, three

full-time instructors, six part-time instructors, and an administrative

assistant. I might point out that all the expenditures are cost-shared. That is

75-25 federal-provincial funding.

Another question was: How many people are taking French

language training? The answer to that question is that approximately 200

individuals are taking training on a part-time basis.

Now to get to the questions from the Member for Placentia &

St. Mary's. I think his first question was relative to page 16, the Premier's

Office, Transportation and Communications. I believe your question was about the

fact that the heading .03 was budgeted for $145,000 and actually $165,000 was

spent. We are now forecasting $145,000 again for this upcoming year.

I would like to remind the member opposite that the office of

the Premier requires that the Premier do extensive travel from time to time to

represent the Province's business. I am sure you were party to the information

supplied this morning about the GWAC agreement, which is only one of the number

of issues that the Premier deals with from time to time.

I think what we should point out here is that the Premier is

carrying on the Province's business. Many of them are directed to economic

development which we need so much in this Province to look after the demands by

our taxpayers. This is the reason for this travel, and it is quite legitimate, I

might add.

The next one was page 17. I believe your question was

directed to 2.2.03. That would be Social Policy Analysis. Your question, which

was unusual, was: Why was there a reduction? There was a budgeted salary of

$161,400 and actually there was only $114,000 used. The real reason for that was

due to the non-reoccurrence of the twenty-seventh pay period. The salary was

cost for a full year for two permanent positions and one temporary position. The

savings that were outlined in this reduction were basically due to vacancies for

part of the fiscal year which I announced yesterday as well. I believe what is

important is that the total for 2.2.03 was budgeted at $174,300, and out of that

only $121,900 was used. We are being very frugal, I might add.

The next question was on Professional Services. May I ask the

hon. member what heading that was under? Excuse me, I have it, it would be

2.2.04.05, Professional Services. That was the amount of $37,300 and only

$15,000 was spent. I would like to mention to the member, as I did yesterday,

that this fund is the Offshore Fund - Administration, and the appropriations

provide for the centralized administration of projects under the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund. It is a federal-provincial

initiative. It is also administered through the Department of Industry, Trade

and Technology. The funding provides for coordination of activities surrounding

this policy.

I would like to respond to the one for Professional Services,

2.2.04.05. The actual savings in that category was the fact that it included the

hiring of an independent auditing firm but the costs of the professional

services by that firm were less than anticipated.

I think the important thing to look at as well is that the

bottom line on this was that there was a budget of $42,200 indicated early in

the year and only $24,000 used, so there were considerable savings there. As a

result, we forecasted $39,200 as spending for that category this year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: As I said last night, Mr. Chair, the

President of Treasury Board is doing very well in answering the questions that

have been raised by this side of the House. I have no problem in saying that she

is doing an excellent job as the President of Treasury Board in this regard,

answering the questions here on the estimates. She is doing an excellent job. As

I said to the Minister of Fisheries last night, maybe he should take a lesson or

two from the President of Treasury Board.

I would just like to, if I could, ask a few questions as they

relate to page 15 of the Estimates. I would like to touch, for a few moments, on

Government House, 1.1.01. I would like to ask a few questions as they relate to

Government House because I am very concerned, I have to be honest, as a

representative in this House and as a person who lives in rural Newfoundland,

watching what is happening to rural Newfoundland over the past number of years.

The question that needs to be looked at and certainly asked

is, if we really can afford Government House, if we really can afford to operate

Government House in this Province while we are looking at programs being cut in

our schools, people leaving their communities and moving away to different parts

of Canada, roads deteriorating, and complete communities being closed up.

We really have to ask ourselves, I think, and take a second

look. That is not to be putting anyone down or anything, but we have to take a

second look and compare this Province's Government House to other provinces in

the country and have a serious look at the costs. I look at the cost of

Government House, and we will just start with the salaries.

The salary budget for last year for Government House reached

a whopping $412,100. Now, there was a reduction in the revised budget of

$372,000. Maybe the President of Treasury Board, when she stands, can address

the fact that we have a fair amount of money there, from $412,100 down to

$372,000. Was there somebody laid off? Was there somebody retired who was not

replaced? How come we had a reduction of $412,100 to $372,000? Then, on the

other hand, we have a new estimate for this year of $402,400. Really, there is a

little bit of a discrepancy there that I am sure the President of Treasury

Board, when she stands, will address. I certainly would like to know.

I would also like to know, really, if we could take a moment

to just run down through the salaries of Government House and ask ourselves - we

look at this Salary Details on Government House and we have a private secretary

to the Lieutenant-Governor who receives $97,453 a year. The secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor receives $34,948 a year. We have a resident manager

receiving $31,625 year. We have a secretary to the assistant deputy minister

receiving $22.404 a year. We have a gardener receiving $31,204 a year. We have

the chef at Government House receiving $26,645 a year. We have a maintenance

repair worker at Government House receiving $22,901 a year. We have a chauffeur

receiving $20,826 a year. We have a seamstress receiving $18,018 a year. We have

four domestic workers receiving $75,568 a year. A total salary budget for

Government House last year of $381,592.

I just want to ask, can we afford it? I am just asking the

question, can we afford it? Can we afford Government House in its present

setting? That is the question I am asking. I think it is a legitimate question.

These are just some of -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I am questioning the fact of, can we afford

it, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon, I say to the director of the

`meetloaf' committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, don't try to come back. It is too late

to come back now, I say to the director of the `meetloaf' committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I am asking a very legitimate question, I

say to the Minister of Fisheries. Can we, as a Province, afford Government

House? There are other provinces in Canada that do not have this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I am glad my questions have awakened the

member in the back row. I am very glad to see that he is awake again.

I just want to ask some questions. I think it is a legitimate

concern, a legitimate question to ask. Can we afford Government House?

Some people may disagree. I am not saying we cannot afford

it. I am asking a very legitimate question. Can we?

When we look at the situation in this Province today, and the

out-migration that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Maybe if we took our dollars and reinvested

them in some good quality businesses in this Province we would have those

thirteen jobs plus other jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Well, I am very, very pleased. What district

is he from?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. MANNING: Twillingate & Fogo. I am very pleased that

the member is awake this morning. Maybe he should be getting up asking some

questions on the education cuts in his district. We are getting the calls to our

offices concerning Fogo, which we will be visiting next week. If he was speaking

out on behalf of the people he represents, he would do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, the vice-chair of the `meetloaf'

committee is back in his seat I see. I am very, very glad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see that

the vice-president of the `meetloaf' committee is back in his seat now, after

his trip to Corner Brook yesterday and his show and tell on CBC TV last night.

He said: Yes, yes, there are going to be cuts to programs. Yes, there are. He

started listening to the people we are listening to. Was he out manufacturing

what the people were saying? Was he, the Member for Humber East?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, the director of the `meetloaf'

committee. Go back to your seat, I say to the director of the `meetloaf'

committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: The legal beagle has fled.

MR. MANNING: The legal beagle has fled. There he goes, he

is gone. Yes, Sir, he is gone. Run and hide.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to ask a few legitimate questions

here but I keep trying to be drowned out by the members opposite. I say they are

very legitimate questions. I asked some questions: Can we afford these things?

We have to ask the questions. They are legitimate questions. In Newfoundland and

Labrador, yes, there are some positive signs. I say to the Minister of

Fisheries, there are some positive signs. I would say the fact that the Minister

of Fisheries is at the helm of the Department of Fisheries has helped to provide

some of those positive signs. I have no problem in giving credit where credit is

due, but I do have some concerns if we can afford extravagance. That is the

question I am asking here this morning.

I would just like to say, if I could, we talked about

concerns in the Province and we all have very legitimate concerns. I come from a

rural district that has some very legitimate concerns. We have out-migration in

massive numbers, and hopefully -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) in the Province before.

MR. MANNING: Oh, it happened in the Province before, I

say to the Minister of Fisheries, but I do not know if it happened in the

numbers that it has happened in the past eight or nine years since this

government came to power, I have to say, Mr. Chair. I do not know if we have had

as many people leave this Province before and stay out of it, period.

I will just give the Minister of Fisheries a few numbers, if

he would like, about out-migration over the past few years since this government

came to power. In the year 1990-1991 we lost 711 people with out-migration; 711

people. That was the start of the snowball.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) snowball.

MR. MANNING: That was the start of the snowball.

If the minister will give me leave to continue on, I will

give him some numbers. You asked me to give you some numbers, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries. I only had a chance to give the number for one year and

he asked me to sit down. Can't you handle the truth, I say to the minister? You

asked me to give you some numbers. I am trying to give you some numbers but you

are not giving me the chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, here we go. Look, minister wannabe.

Listen, the Minister of Fisheries asked for some numbers -

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

told him for the fourth time, his time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let's talk about some facts and some

figures. Let's talk about what is happening around this Province today.

When they stand and talk about out-migration, you would not

know but it never, ever happened in the Province before. It has happened since

Newfoundland was discovered. People came for the season, went back across the

Atlantic Ocean, and a way of life has been developed.

I received an invitation to speak to a group of people in

Cambridge, Ontario, in June month. They estimate the population of

Newfoundlanders in Ontario alone to be in excess of 300,000 people. Now, that

only happened in the last two or three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, only gone five years. That is just in

Ontario alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, but you are talking about out-migration

as if it never, ever happened; it just started happening five years ago.

The one thing I have to question is: How can anybody stand

here in this House of Assembly and question the cost of the residence of the

Lieutenant-Governor? I just cannot believe - the oldest parliamentary tradition

- talking about being anti-Confederate, now to be against the residence of the

Lieutenant-Governor. Not only is he questioning the cost, but he wants to lay

off how many people down there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen.

MR. EFFORD: Thirteen people down at the residence of the

Lieutenant-Governor. Now that is a real sensible position to take here this

morning. Can we afford it? Can we afford this monstrosity, $10 million? Who

built this? Who designed this? Tories, Tories! Ten million dollars, and you are

questioning the residence?

He is questioning the cost of Executive Council, the cost of

the Premier's Office. This is where I really get ticked off - questioning the

cost of operating the Premier's Office.

Let me tell you what a Premier spends. Let me give you some

facts and figures of what a Premier spends. This is from Executive Council, and

this is what a Premier spends. Please issue a standing order for the supply of

tobacco products for the Premier's Office to be picked up on an as is, where is,

required basis - $5,000 for cigarettes.

Please issue a standing order for liquor and beer to be

picked up on an as is required basis for the private dining room of the

Premier's office - $20,000.

Please issue a standing order for the purchase of fish items

for the Premier's office - $3,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: These numbers cannot be correct.

MR. EFFORD: We are not halfway yet.

Please issue a standing order to purchase frozen and seasonal

products, as is, when is, when required - $1,500.

Please issue a standing order for dry cleaning of

tablecloths, as is, when is, required - $1,000, the dry cleaning of the

tablecloths.

This is a good one. Please issue a standing order for the

purchase of groceries for the Premier's private hall on an as is, when is,

required - $10,000.

What do we have: ten; eleven; twelve, five; fifteen, five;

and twenty. That is $35,500, and $5,000; $40,500 for a standing order for the

Premier's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years was that for?

MR. EFFORD: That was only one-month's supply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Just listen. I will tell you how long it is

for. It says that here. That is for the month of April.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Yes, here it is, April 1, 1989 to March 31 -

$5,000 worth of cigarettes - and he is up there questioning -

MR. TULK: No, cigars.

MR. EFFORD: Cigars, I am sorry. And he is up questioning

the cost of the Lieutenant-Governor's residence.

Who was the Premier at that particular time?

The conscientious people are talking about education, talking

about health, and there is not enough money. Make no wonder there is not enough

money. Make no wonder when we took over government in 1989, how many billion

dollars were we in debt?

MR. TULK: Loyola says $5.859 billion.

He would not say the $6 billion, but $5.859 billion.

MR. EFFORD: Interest payment on that alone is in excess

of $585 million. Make no wonder they could not manage -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Just listen now. You have to hear this. Make

no wonder they could not manage the administration of this government, of this

Province, because by the time they smoked $5,000 worth of cigars, drank $20,000

worth of booze, and ate $30,000 worth of food, they had no time to do anything

else. They had absolutely no time to do anything else.

Yes, you should hang your head in shame. You can stand over

there now as if everything is jovial and okay.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that members opposite look into the

past before they start questioning the administration of this government or the

cost of the Lieutenant-Governor's residence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was that put then?

MR. EFFORD: That was put in the private dining room of

the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador - none other than the hon. Tom Rideout.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Tell us about the cigar cooler in certain

other politicians' front porches.

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

I have recognized the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chair, I am very pleased that the

Minister of Fisheries go up and enlightened us on some history. I am very

pleased. I think that we all, everyone here in this House, need to be reminded

of our history. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, he has to go further than

the Murray Premises to remind him of his history.

MR. EFFORD: What is that?

MR. MANNING: The Murray Premises, I say.

If you want to talk about thousands of dollars - and I

certainly do not stand up and say what happened in 1989 was right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, it was not right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pickle book.

MR. MANNING: I hope we do. When I started with my few

words, before the Minister of Fisheries jumped to his feet, I believe I was

discussing out-migration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I was talking about out-migration since this

government came to power. I was on the first year, I say to the Minister of

Fisheries. I was started with the first year, the year of 1990-1991. The net

out-migration was 711 people for 1990-1991. As I said before, that was the

beginning of the snowball.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, we have always had Newfoundlanders

leave this Province to go elsewhere to find work. I know many people in my home

town, in my own communities around, the father would leave and go to work

somewhere on the mainland or down in Labrador or wherever the case may be, but

he always returned in the fall of the year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of them.

MR. MANNING: Most of them returned in the fall of the

year but the family unit stayed there, the community kept alive, the school kept

alive, the recreation programs kept alive because the people stayed there. The

family unit stayed in place.

Now, what do we see in this Province today? What we see in

this Province today, due to failed economic policies, is out-migration with

mothers, fathers, sons, daughters - pack their bags and they are out of this

Province and do not get the chance to get back. Before, we used to have people

come home in the fall and the family unit stayed intact, the community stayed

intact, the schools stayed intact. What do we see now? Barred up homes, U-Haul

trucks. They are gone and they are not coming back, due to the failed economic

policies of this Liberal government over ten years, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to go back to the year of 1990-1991 and

out-migration. The snowball started in 1990-1991 with 711 people. Then we went

up to 1991-1992, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I am just giving a little

history here - you want some history - about out-migration since this government

came to power. From 1991-1992, 1,669 people left this Province and never came

back. The out-migration was 1,669 from 1992-1992.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I want to just ask the hon.

gentleman about the flip-flops that they do on the other side. One day they are

against something and the next day they are for it. I want to ask him if he

shares the feelings and the thoughts of the Member for Lewisporte who believes

that we should not have bought back the licences of people under the early

retirement program? I wonder, would he address that issue? Because I think the

hon. gentleman has accused us of helping out-migration by buying back the

licences of people - older people, he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. TULK: The Member for Lewisporte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, the Member for Lewisporte, but you are part

of the party. I want to know if he agrees. Does he agree that we should not have

bought them back?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: Answer the question.

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

MR. MANNING: I will tell you what I do not agree with, I

say to the Government House Leader - which I brought up here the other day and

members of the opposite side of the House turned it into something else - and

that is total fisheries management from Ottawa. What I do not agree with is

someone who has spent forty-two years in a fishing boat and did not get the

chance to retire because of rules and regulations, that they did not take in

historical attachment in the forty-two years in a fishing boat. When someone in

Ottawa sent him a letter and said that he was not attached to the fishery, after

forty-two years in a fishing boat, that is what I do not agree with.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, those are the things that

I stood here the other day and talked about, and tried to get some assistance

from this House to go to Ottawa and address. That is what I do not agree with,

someone who went in a boat when he was twelve years old and was in it forty-two

years later and someone in Ottawa told him that he was not attached to the

fishery. Failed fisheries management, that is what I do not agree with. That is

what I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

If I could get back to the record of this government on

out-migration, that is what I am trying to get back to, but you keep

interrupting me because I know the truth is hard to take. I understand the truth

is hard to take, but you can get up and talk about the previous Tory

Adminstration. I was not here. I cannot be held responsible for something I was

not part of, I say to members opposite.

If we could get back to the out-migration, in 1990-1991, as I

said, the snowball started when we had 711 people leave this Province and never

return - 711.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: From 1990-1991, I say to the Member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island, 711. From 1991-1992, 1,669 more became part

of the snowball, became part of the red snowball, I would say. The first red

snowball ever invented started here in 1989 and it has been snowballing since.

From 1991-1992, 1,669. I will give the Minister of Fisheries time to add two of

those together before I get into the next year.

From 1992-1993, we see a net out-migration of 3,078. Do you

have that one, I say to the Minister of Fisheries? Okay. For 1993-1994, we see a

net out-migration of 4,952.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The voice in the wilderness keeps coming

from the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

In 1994-1995, that red snowball was rolling pretty heavy and

picking up a lot of people in her wake. For 1994-1995, we had 6,974 added, and

the snowball never stopped then. As you see, she adds on each year. If there

were some good economic policies, maybe the snowball would not be adding on;

maybe it would be declining, but that is not the fact. The facts are here. The

facts are hard to take, I know. The truth is hard to handle, but it is here in

black and white. That is why I am bringing it here to the House today, because I

think it is one of the major concerns of this Province, one of the major

concerns of this government, and it needs to be addressed.

For 1995-1996, the snowball picked up 7,436 more people. From

1996-1997, the snowball picked up 8,134 people. I say to the Minister of

Fisheries, just in case you did not get it, for 1996-1997, the snowball picked

up 8,134 people. Did it stop there? No. The best year so far, after almost ten

years of this government, 1997-1998, the snowball picked up 11,434 people.

Just in case the Minister of Fisheries needs some assistance,

from 1990-1998, while this government was in power, we had a net out-migration

in this Province of 44,388 people.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Chairman, if that is a record you

are proud of, I question that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I have never in my life heard such a

wishy-washy, flip-floppy, bunch as that crew over there; never in my life, since

I came in here. I have been around politics since 1979. Yes, for the hon.

gentleman it has been too long, I will admit that, but I have never in my

lifetime, as long as I have been here - they try to skate and slide out from

under their own past record.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slither.

MR. TULK: Slither along the ground. I have never seen the

like. They say: Don't hold us to the past. We have no past.

Well, I have to tell them that they have no future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: They do have a past. I have to say to the hon.

gentleman that sitting in the third chair - I do not know where it is, but it is

somewhere over there - is the Member for Lewisporte. They went out and recruited

him - a big news conference out in front of Confederation Building with the

Leader of the Opposition saying: At last I have found him.

He wanted to run in Bonavista North. He waited until the

nominations for the Liberal Party were over in three or four districts up and

down the (inaudible). He had his eye set - he wanted to come out and tell them

how good he was with fisheries again. Elect me. I am back, newly dressed up from

law school.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Backupable'.

MR. TULK: Now respectable because I have a law degree.

Elect me and I will be Premier again.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to the hon. gentleman that there is

a past for his party. There is a past for the Member for Lewisporte, and he

brings it with him into this House. He brings his baggage with him.

The flip-flop party on the other side. I have never seen

anything in my life like it. All of us in this House agreed - that party agreed

last year, the Member for Bonavista South was particularly vocal in agreeing

that we should have early retirement of people in the fishery.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, tell him what age.

MR. TULK: He wanted it down to fifty. We were prepared to

move below 55 but the federal government was not.

The Member for Baie Verte was very vocal. What does the

Member for Lewisporte want? In Hansard last week, he said: You have cut off the

rebuilding and the revitalizing of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by allowing

the out-migration to take place.

That is what he said we did. Now, how have we done it? How

did he say we have done this? By buying back the licenses from the older people

as a means of getting them out of it, putting them on an early pension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: I ask the hon. gentleman, when he stands up and

starts going through those Estimates again, I want him to stand up and tell me -

especially a person from Placentia & St. Mary's, a very rural district, a very

good district, very good people - I want him to stand up and tell me: Does he

agree that we should not have, last year, put those people on an early

retirement package?

MR. EFFORD: Or buy back licenses.

MR. TULK: Or buy back licenses? I want him to stand up

and tell me: Does he agree with the fisheries expert on the other side, the

expert on everything -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is neither one over there.

MR. TULK: Yes, there is, the Member for Lewisporte.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, that is right.

MR. TULK: The Tories brought him back as the star. The

Minister of Mines and Energy must remember the press conference outside of

Confederation Building, out in front of the building, snow blowing in their

eyes, rain pelting down, and here is the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the

Opposition, saying: He is back. I got the star.

What he did not realize is that the star had a burning tail

on it. It was on its way to extinction. That is what the hon. gentleman is on

his way to.

I want the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to stand up and

tell me if he agrees with the hon. gentleman, that we should not have put those

people on an early pension, that we should have left them out there to starve -

AN HON. MEMBER: Beaton, we have got to photocopy that.

MR. TULK: Oh, that is going out. Don't worry, that is

going out in Lewisporte. I happen to shadow the place. Myself and the Members

for Exploits and Grand Falls will ensure that if they want a travelling road

show on the other side we will give them one. We will give them two. We will

give them three, if they need it. We will hold them accountable. You cannot walk

into this House day after day and say: Whatever somebody wants, give it to them

- like a pack of cards, deal it out -, and at the same time come in and make

those kind of statements.

I am sure that the Member for Bonavista South, if he were

here, would stand in his place and say: No, I cannot agree with the Member for

Lewisporte.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Yetman was on from St. John's

South yesterday. What was she asking for?

MR. TULK: I do not know.

MR. EFFORD: Pensions to be lowered to age fifty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Pensions to be lowered again. Whenever there is

a parade you will see a Tory at the head of it. I want the Member for St. John's

South to tell me if he is going to get ahead of this parade, that the Member for

Lewisporte, the former premier, the twenty-nine day premier - I want to know

from him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) I remember you stood in your

place one time a couple of years ago (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, protect me from the hon.

gentleman. Look, he is going after my buddy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) oh, he did.

MR. TULK: Are you finished? I will soon be finished too,

I think.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to know is this. I want the hon.

gentlemen, and I would ask the Member for Humber East to let me finish asking

him the question, I want to know from the hon. gentlemen: Does he agree that we

should not have bought back those licences, that we should not have put people

on early retirement? Here he comes, the Member for Bonavista South.

I want to read you a statement that the Member for Lewisporte

made on May 11. I am going to ask the Member for Bonavista South if he agrees.

If the hon. gentlemen would listen? He says across the House to this government:

That is what you have done. He says, "You have cut off the rebuilding and the

revitalizing of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by allowing the out-migration to

take place..." How did he say we did it? "[B]y buying back the licences from the

older people as a means of getting them out of it, putting them on an early

pension."

Is the Member for Bonavista South hearing what I am saying?

In other words, the Member for Lewisporte is telling that member, who went to

Ottawa last year and did a fine job to help get some money for his people in

Bonavista South, that we should not have done it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Listen, I am fifty-five next week. I would have

to be about 110 before I would be able to ask a question again from that side to

this side. While I might be around for a few more years, maybe until I'm 108 or

something, I do not intend to stay on until I'm 110.

Mr. Chairman, I think my time is just about up. I have got a

few more things that I want to point out to the hon. gentleman. I want the

Member for Bonavista South, I want him on the record; I want the Members for St.

John's South and Placentia & St. Mary's on the record. I do not expect the

Member for St. John's East to stand up at all, because he wouldn't know a cod if

it smacked him in the mouth. I am not sure about the Member for Conception Bay

South. Maybe he should get on the record.

MR. EFFORD: No, he would not know a cod from a sculpin.

MR. TULK: I do not know. He is getting out there a little

bit. Get on the record, tell us where you stand. Here he comes, old Whitbourne

road. Another gentlemen that got run over last night by the Mack truck from

Placentia & St. Mary's. We are waiting to hear from him as well. We want him on

the record about that road.

The Member for Bellevue got his number yesterday evening. I

tell the hon. gentlemen that he cannot sit over there and just slide and slither

and skate around. Go out in the Province. You know what they did? They are

reading the Hansard over there from 1985 to 1989 and they are copying everything

that we did to defeat the government of the day, sending out committees, but the

difference was that we came back and presented not just the criticisms but said:

Here are some solutions. What do you get over there? (Inaudible), maybe, yes it

might. The world might fall in. Chicken little -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Not true.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. TULK: By leave? Do I have leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. TULK: Just a delay.

CHAIR: No leave.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to see that we are on a history lesson here

this morning. I am very pleased to see that when I stood in this House today and

brought up the out-migration record of this government for the past ten years I

managed to get a couple of ministers up on their feet. I am very pleased. The

truth is bitter, I say to the members opposite, and the record of out-migration

caused by this government for the past ten years is just as bitter.

We talk about accountability. The Government House Leader

stands in his place and talks about accountability.

MR. TULK: Not true, I never used the word.

MR. MANNING: I think you had better check Hansard.

Mr. Chair, he stands in this House and talks about

accountability. Let's talk about accountability for a few moments. Let's talk

about Trans City and this government over the past couple of years. Let's talk

about the almost $30 million that Trans City cost the taxpayers of this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's talk about the middle distance

fleet (inaudible) $30 million!

MR. MANNING: Oh, the director of the `meetloaf' committee

is back on the go again. I say go back to your chair, Mr. Chair.

Let's talk about accountability. Thirty million dollars Trans

City has cost the taxpayers of this Province and we talk about accountability.

That could buy a lot of cigars, I say. Let's talk about S.C.B. Fisheries and the

millions of dollars that it has cost taxpayers of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who started it?

MR. MANNING: It does not matter. Yes, it matters who

started it. Yes, I would say, it matters who started it, but I thought that the

present Minister of Fisheries would end it but he continues to go with it.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

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

Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I realize the hon. member for Placentia &

St. Mary's has a big responsible position in this House. Yesterday he struck a

select committee of this House called the `meetloaf' committee. I was not

consulted, but I was made the chairperson of that committee. I guess the

question I have to ask today: Is that a paid position or is it a volunteer

position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chair, a few years ago when the hon.

Member for Bellevue was appointed parliamentary assistant to the Premier, he

felt that it was a stepping stone to that greater, higher office that we call

the minister.

We talk about history. Back in the other administration that

was the route, and I am sure that the Member for Bellevue felt that that was the

route. The Member for Bellevue did not understand the process, did not

understand the criterion that it takes to become a member of the Cabinet. You

have to be a Tory first, I say to the Member for Bellevue. You are not going to

meet the criterion, I say. Talk about special positions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MANNING