May 13,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 24

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like

to welcome to the galleries today, on behalf of all members, twenty Level I

students from the Cultural Heritage Class, Queen Elizabeth Regional High School,

from the Districts of Topsail, Conception Bay South and Conception Bay East &

Bell Island, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Janie House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again today, I find it necessary to address an

issue that I raised in the House yesterday when I read for the record a letter

from Dr. Michael Delmas of the National Polytechnique Institute of Toulouse,

France. As hon. members are aware, this letter emphatically stated that a CBC

report referencing the university and the tannery for Baie Verte was "totally

unfounded".

It is most regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the CBC report on

yesterday's proceedings on this issue did not clarify the situation.

This morning, I spoke by telephone to Dr. Delmas, and he

again assured me that there is no legal dispute and no disagreement between the

National Polytechnique Institute, Teleos Trading of Italy, and NATSIQ

Newfoundland. In the case of the North American Environmental Technologies, Dr.

Delmas also advised me that the Institute has no legal dispute with that

company, nor is he aware of any dispute involving NAET and any French company.

It is most unfortunate that the Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation has continued to leave an impression that there is some legal

dispute, and by inference that this is linked to Teleos Trading, and that this

could compromise the tannery project.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Teleos

Trading has a good track record in the tannery business. The tanning process to

be used at Baie Verte is the one the company is using in Italy. It has nothing

whatsoever to do with any tanning process developed in France.

As Dr. Delmas has told me, the Institute in Toulouse has no

legal dispute with either NATSIQ or North American Environmental Technologies.

In fact, the Institute will be working with NATSIQ on seal oil refining at Baie

Verte.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the CBC - in fact I do not think,

I know, and I should ask, that the CBC should immediately act to address the

issue of misleading reports it has carried about the tannery for Baie Verte. Not

to do so would be a grave disservice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and all partners connected with the tannery project.

Mr. Speaker, since I had that telephone conversation this

morning with Dr. Delmas in France, he has faxed me another letter to clarify in

full detail the misleading information put out by the CBC Corporation. I am

going to read for the record and then I will table the letter:

Mr. Minister, following your phone call and our talk, I can

confirm that the report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with reference

to our university, is totally unfounded and unfair to courageous people in

Newfoundland engaged in this very interesting industrial project. We have signed

an agreement with North American Environmental Technology and a French company,

Gaches Incorporated to developed tanning operations in Canada one year ago. The

agreement failed recently because the French company cannot hold all of its

commitments and does not want to invest in Canada, not because of any legal

dispute. We shall work with NATSIQ Newfoundland and the Baie Verte partners when

these companies will be ready, probably when all the official agreements will be

signed.

I speak on behalf of myself, as head of this corporation here

and on behalf of Professor A. Costes, president of our university, looking

forward for the successful outcome of the Baie Verte project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank the minister for sending a copy of the

statement before the House opened and, of course, the copy of the other letter

just received from Dr. Delmas. I have also been in correspondence with the

Toulouse University and it is pretty straightforward as the letter as indicated.

What is so shameful here is that, at a time when Newfoundland needs jobs more

than ever, we had to have negative spins put on something that could be so

positive for this Province and that we need so badly.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, to the minister and in support of

everybody in this House of Assembly, that we get on to creating jobs and

something positive in this Province. I am looking forward to a long history with

this company, which is going to invest in this Province and is planning on

staying here - the Teleos Trading group. So, I look forward to their coming to

this Province and putting people to work.

MR. EFFORD: They should apologize.

MR. SHELLEY: They certainly should apologize, I agree

with the minister and put this straight in this Province once and for all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise my hon.

colleagues that privatization arrangement have been concluded on eight parks to

be opened for this Victoria Day weekend. I am pleased to announce that a greater

number of camp sites are being offered to the public this Victoria Day weekend

as compared to the same time last year. Government is currently in the process

of concluding final arrangements on the remaining private parks.

The newly privatized parks to be opened for the Victoria Day

weekend include: Beothuck Park, Backside Pond, Catamaran Park, Jack's Pond,

Gushue's Pond, Northern Bay Sands, Bellevue Beach, and Square Pond. Mr. Speaker,

this is the first set of announcements on the outcome of the parks privatization

process. We are continuing to negotiate with top-ranked proponents and will have

more announcements in the coming days and weeks.

The opening dates for parks operating within our core

provincial park system that will be open for this long weekend are as follows:

Butter Pot and La Manche on Wednesday, May 14, and on Friday May 16, Barachois

Pond, Frenchman's Cove, and Notre Dame will open. The department has issued a

news release today which gives a detailed listing of the parks and the numbers

of available campsites.

I also want to take this opportunity to update the Members of

the House of Assembly on the status of the parks workers who were affected by

this privatization process. Of the ninety-one seasonal positions, eighty-two

positions were actually occupied by seasonal staff. Of that number, eighteen

people have accepted retirement or exit options offered by government. Another

fifty-five have been placed in other positions within the provincial park

system. Government is currently in the process of placing the remaining nine

seasonal employees.

Mr. Speaker, government is pleased that these new privatized

parks will be in operation for what promises to be our busiest and most exciting

tourism season ever. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister

for providing me with a copy of the statement prior to the House opening.

Eight parks of the twenty-one announced for privatisation we

now know are opening this week, the others to be announced in the further days

and weeks. This information, I understood, was going to be provided to us in

April. It is a little late coming.

Fifty-five employees have been placed in seasonal positions

within the existing provincial parks of the ninety-one seasonal positions there.

Of those I understand that the employees are supposed to get approximately

twelve weeks work. That is a far cry from what they were getting under the old

system.

MS KELLY: Not necessarily.

MR. OSBORNE: Not necessarily, the minister says, but some

of them will. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how much those parks that are now being

announced today are opening this week, how much did the government receive for

those? I wonder if the minister would provide us with that information;

furthermore, if she could provide us with the information that last Tuesday I

believe she promised to have back to us the following day in regards to the

figures on Jonathan's Pond.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave? By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The announcement by the minister of the opening of eight

parks does not do justice to the program that the minister put forth earlier

this year in the hopes that all of these parks would be taken up by

entrepreneurs, and she does not say anything about how much money they are going

to save if in fact all these people are going to be working in other jobs. It is

pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that a substantial number of people have been

displaced or, the people that she has put in other departments or in other jobs

are displacing other people or else she is not saving money at all.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing (inaudible)

accomplishing in this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to ask hon. members to join with me in

acknowledging National Nurses Week, May 12-18. The theme this year is "Sharing

the Health Challenge". This is a most appropriate theme, Mr. Speaker, in light

of the weekend's two-day health forum. As I stated following the weekend

discussions, the forum provided an opportunity for all health providers to come

together and identify new opportunities for team approaches to patient care.

Nurses are an integral part of that team.

Nursing is the art of combining skill, education, science and

nurturing. It is the art of balancing emotional care as well as physical care.

Nurses are present at the bedside and in the community, they are in contact with

patients and their families. Nurses are present in our hospitals and nursing

homes, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, sharing critical moments in

their patient's lives. In communities, nurses identify and treat health

problems, and provide health education for the community as a whole. We have

nurses in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and we are privilege to

acknowledge our first female Sergeant-at-Arms, a registered nurse, during this

Nurses Week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Nurses are aware of the need to think in

broad terms of population health, healthy communities and healthy public policy.

In recent years, nurses have been faced with a changing

health care environment. Even though these times are not easy times, nurses are

meeting the challenges head on. Each and every nurse across this Province is

committed to his or her patients and dedicated to ensuring they receive quality

care. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, nurses are working together to give their

input into a reformed health system.

Mr. Speaker, I believe nursing is one of society's most

valuable professions. We should be proud of our 5,000 nurses across this

Province; knowledgeable and dedicated health professionals with a commitment to

provide the best possible care to their patients. I ask all members in this

House to celebrate National Nursing Week with me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for receiving a copy of

her statement. We too, minister, on this side of the House would like to join

with you first of all of course in congratulating the nurses. They are the

front-line workers in this Province. They are the people who are in our

hospitals, who are tending to our patients, who are going bed to bed and who are

working extremely hard on the front line to see that our patients are given

nothing but the best of care. I guess the only hope I have is that I wish there

could be more of them but we too would like to join with you and say to the

nurses that we are proud of them and we are proud of the work that they do in

our Province. We hope that they continue that good work and over the next

several months we certainly hope that their numbers increase. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the official

opposition critic in celebrating the role that nurses play in our health care

system. I know that many are increasingly frustrated at the inability to provide

the kind of service and caring service that they are trained to provide. I also

want to note, Mr. Speaker, that the role of nurses and capabilities of nurses

are not fully utilized in our health care system but nurses have many talents as

is evident from the presence of the minister herself and other ministers in

Cabinet and others in the House of Assembly who are playing significant roles in

government as well as in health care itself. I think we should look further into

the role of nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and other services that can be

quite adequately and properly supplied -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

system.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to Oral Questions I would

like to welcome to the gallery today forty Grade VII students from Coaker

Academy in the district of Twillingate and Fogo accompanied by teachers Edgar

Hunt, Douglas Small; chaperons Judy Dearing, Elaine Rideout and bus driver

Edward Luff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to recognize a former

Member of the House of Assembly who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery today,

Mr. John Nolan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for, I guess, the Premier or acting Premier of the Province, or maybe the

acting Minister of Mines and Energy, who I understand is the Premier, so maybe

the acting, acting Minister of Mines and Energy or the future Minister of Mines

and Energy might answer this.

The Premier has advocated an open process for the study of a

copper smelter for this Province, and he did this by providing here in the House

the name of the company doing that study. Hatch and Associates are supposed to

be conducting an independent study. I ask the minister whether he can confirm

whether or not this company, Hatch and Associates, has already been affiliated

with Inco in conducting another study for them.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Hatch and Associates have been

conducting work in this Province for the past twenty years. They have done

studies for the Peckford administrations, the Moores administrations; they have

done studies in Labrador West; they have done studies in Long Harbour. They are

currently conducting two separate pieces of work: One, their environmental

services division is doing some work on the environmental assessment for the

world's largest smelter and refinery at Argentia. On the other side, their

non-ferrous services division has been asked to conduct a study on the

feasibility of a copper smelter for our Province. We see no problem with that.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make it clear, I asked the minister if Hatch

and Associates is doing other work specifically for Inco in addition to the work

it is doing for this government on the feasibility of a copper smelter. Is it

working for Inco in some other capacity?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the only knowledge I have - and I

am not in that department, but - I am aware that they are currently doing some

environmental assessment work at the Argentia site for the world's largest

smelter and refinery. What are they doing for government? Well, the Department

of Mines and Energy has commissioned them to do an independent study, arm's

length from government, to assess the feasibility and whether it is economically

feasible to build a copper smelter. Are the reserves large enough so as to cause

the economics to be such that we can actually construct and build a smelter here

in this Province? We have asked them to do that.

We know that other studies were done by North Star and others

that came up with certain conclusions, really, which were inconclusive, if you

read the fine detail of those studies. So we have asked, and the Premier wants

to maximize all of the benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the ways of doing that is to ensure that we

secondarily process every single thing that comes out of Voisey's Bay. To do

that we needed an arm's length study. Hatch is one of two worldwide that are

recognized around the world for conducting these kinds of studies into the

feasibility and doing the comprehensive

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - analysis required -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his

answer quickly, please.

MR. FUREY: - to see whether in fact this kind of facility

could be feasible. We have asked them to do that.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Voisey's Bay

Nickel, Inco, have already indicated, they stated it isn't feasible. The Premier

has said it, the former minister, Dr. Gibbons, in this House said it isn't

economically viable. I'm saying if this company is working for Inco and Inco has

stated that, it may compromise the position in getting an independent assessment

of whether it is feasible, I say to the minister. That is a legitimate concern.

I ask the minister: Given the importance of this open process

for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, would the minister table in this House

the terms of reference that were agreed to between this government and Hatch

Associates regarding the feasible study for a copper smelter?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Inco has said

that at the outset, in the open-pit performance of the mine, and the first six

years, there would be 65,000 tons annually of copper concentrates. When they

move into the underground some six years later, that decreases to 55,000 tons

annually. We know from Inco, we know from the Gladwin study, we know from other

international studies - and we are waiting for the outcome of this study -, that

for a copper smelter to be viable and economically successful it has to be

100,000 tons annually with a peak production, to make it competitive, of 150,000

tons annually. You can see by the numbers that Inco has released, that the

Gladwin report has released - and we will await the outcome of Hatch -, but in

the preliminary assessment you can see that we are only halfway there, it is

only half feasible. So let's wait to see what the Hatch people come up with,

let's wait to see what their calculations are.

With respect to the terms of reference, I would go a step

further. The terms of reference, no. When the Cabinet has reviewed the Hatch

report in its full context we will go a step further and release it to the full

public.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they aren't prepared to

release the terms of reference of an open process, the Premier, stated. There

are copper smelters operating in this world with 100,000 tons and less, many

substantially less, at a profit. We know Inco's position. The president of

Voisey's Bay Nickel indicated to me, and the vice-president, in a meeting some

of the same things that I've been told different by other people out in the

industry.

It has been said here in this House before - the former

Minister of Mines and Energy Dr. Gibbons said in this House back in December:

Government has done research on this issue and is working with your department,

Industry, Trade and Technology, he said, in doing an economic analysis of the

possibility of a copper smelter. I will now ask the minister if he will table in

this House a copy of that research and the economic analysis.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to table economic

analysis or terms of reference while it is being conducted. I mean, if the hon.

member wants to be fair and honest with the people of the Province, let the

process proceed. Don't try to colour the studies and prejudge it and kill it in

its tracks before we even get the thing under way. I think the hon. member is

more interested in scoring political points than extracting copper and creating

jobs.

I would ask the hon. member to be fair. Let the process

unfold. We commit here in the House today not just to table the terms of

reference, but to give a full and public reporting and accounting to all of the

people of the Province on what comes out of the Hatch study.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sometimes what hatches is what goes in, I

say to the minister. That happens at times. Dr. Gibbons and the Premier stated

in this House last fall - they laughed when we ask for a feasibility study, and

they wouldn't (inaudible). Because Inco said it isn't viable. I say to the

minister, I'm sure the minister knows if Inco itself has done a feasibility

study, they would not make such a rash statement. Now, can the minister tell us

whether or not he is aware that Inco has conducted their own study on the

viability of a copper smelter?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that they have or

they have not, I am not the Mines and Energy Minister but I can tell you that

they have come up with certain premises on which they rely. They have come up

with these numbers of 65,000 metric tons of the first six years in the open pit

and 55,000 metric tons thereafter from the underground.

I think the hon. member is trying to hatch all kinds of

conclusions; that is what he is trying to do and I would ask him to be patient,

hold his peace, wait for the outcome of the study, it is being done by a world

class organization with a sterling reputation. I think he would agree with that.

Successive governments have used them both in Labrador West, at Long Harbour, in

other projects; we think this company will come forward with an uncoloured,

unbiased solid set of evidence from which we can then proceed.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He said he is not the Minister of Mines and Energy, well, who

is? I want to ask questions of the Minister of Mines and Energy or the acting

minister, and you represent that department I understand in the absence of the

acting minister so, somebody has to answer the question.

The Premier has been trying to deter a copper smelter by

saying that the nickel contaminant in the copper is actually a deterrent. When

the nickel contaminant in the copper is a by-product that adds an additional

positive resource -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that one of the

co-discoverers of Voisey's Bay, just three days ago, re-iterated his concern

that the Premier could be going against selling out and going against the

government's own law, I ask the minister: Why is the Premier and why is this

government continuing to use every means possible to paint a negative picture

for the possibility of a copper smelter, when you should be doing otherwise?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the

headlines in The Western Star today, Rock Solid; Government still wants

copper smelter built here. Now, is that negative? I would ask the hon. member to

be careful in his statements. It sounds to me like the hon. member wants to be

negative and score cheap, political points.

What we are attempting to do, Mr. Speaker, is to line up the

evidence, line up the facts, marshall those facts in our evidence and deal with

the companies but, we are not going to go, Mr. Speaker, half-cooked, half-baked

or half-cracked to deal with a company that will just dismiss us. We want solid

evidence, solid facts so that we can sit down and deal properly and maturely on

behalf of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He can read from The Western Star but I can read from

Hansard when the former Minister of Mines and Energy, Dr. Gibbons, stood in this

House and said: It is not economically viable to have a copper smelter in this

Province. That is what the former minister said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask the minister: will the minister

admit that Inco has him over a barrel on a ten-year tax holiday and now that is

why you are singing Inco's tune?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are not singing any company's

tune. If we were singing the company's tune, we would be back to the old days

where they take the raw rock and remove it and take it out of here.

Mr. Speaker, we are singing the tune of a maximum 2,000 jobs

in Labrador and the spin-off. We are singing the tune of the world's largest

smelter at Argentia and refinery; that is value adding, Mr. Speaker, and we are

singing the tune of having an independent, professional, world set of experts

tell us whether it is economically feasible and if so, give us the evidence and

the facts to marshall forward to deal with Inco.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. former minister also said, it was his

mandate, Dr. Gibbons, who put in place the Hatch Study, to go out and marshall

these facts. He was one of the finest Energy and Mines ministers this Province

has ever seen, Mr. Speaker, so I say to him that we put the evidence together

and we deal with the companies in a proper, prudent and mature fashion; not

half-cocked, half-baked or half-cracked.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province want to have representation; we

do not want to be paying the salary of another vice-president speaking for Inco.

I ask the minister if it is an open process and you want the

people of this Province to have an opportunity, I ask you simply: Why are you

hiding the Terms of Reference? Why not table the Terms of Reference so the

public can know what this government has set out and what they want to find in

this study?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. Leader

of the Opposition listened to me earlier, but I am not prepared to play

political games with Terms of Reference; to put out Terms of Reference so that

he can colour them or misuse them or abuse them or create bias amongst them. I

am prepared, Mr. Speaker. When the full study is conducted and completed and

Cabinet has reviewed it, I am fully prepared to meet the public, this House, the

Leader of the Opposition to explain to them the Terms of Reference, to allow the

company to tell them how they arrived at certain conclusions and to give all

findings openly and publicly to the people of this Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Minister today we see fishermen and fish plant workers holding demonstrations on

a regular basis to bring attention to their desire to get back to work and do

what they normally did all their lives, to support their families with dignity.

Recently the federal Minister of Fisheries announced a small commercial test

fishery on the South Coast. We continue to hear about the abundance of cod in

our bays and along the North East Coast. I ask the minister, what his

recommendations have been to the federal minister in relation to the reopening

of the North East Coast cod fishery?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal

government and the position of the Province on the reopening of the 3PS fishery

was the right approach, a very cautionary approach. We made a tremendous mistake

in our past history -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I would not use that word.

We made a tremendous mistake in our past history on

overfishing and destroying our fish stocks. We don't want to repeat that again

in the future. We have had a good sentinel survey on the 3PS area, 10,000 metric

ton is recommended. It will open on May 19 and I don't think anybody in the

fishery or anybody in this Province will disagree with that approach. As far as

the North East Coast goes, what I am recommending to the minister is have an

increase in a sentinel fishery survey, not only inshore but an offshore sentinel

survey to determine whether there are sufficient stocks there to have a

commercial test fishery.

The one thing that I have a problem with is that the research

information that has come in to the minister in the past from the scientific

research, done by the boats that the government have engaged their own research,

have not come up with any signs of fish. I fail to understand that because when

they had the survey inshore they did not find any fish but when the sentinel

fishermen went out there they found a good stock of fish in the bays and along

the North East Coast. So when the information researched by the sentinel

fishermen, the fishermen themselves inshore and offshore, gives us the

confidence that we can have a commercial fishery, only then would I recommend

that we have a commercial cod fishery, that is not to say all other species.

That is just in reference to a groundfish fishery.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, fishery workers are not looking for government

hand-outs and would accept fish quotas any day over TAGS cheques. We all realize

that we should be very cautious about when we reopen the Northern Cod Fishery,

however, sometimes we can be too cautious and have our better judgement shadowed

by our fears. I ask the minister if the views and opinions of the real

scientists, the fishermen, will be taken into consideration when making the

important decisions on how and when to open this particular fishery?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bonavista

South could not have been listening to the answer I gave to his first question.

I said I did not have the confidence in the scientific information that has

already come in on the offshore fishery and the - well the reopening of the cod

fishery inshore or offshore on the North East Coast but I do respect the

information that is coming in from the sentinel fishery which is the fishermen

themselves if the hon. member does not understand that. I have also recommended

to the federal minister that we should go the next step and have an offshore

sentinel fishery. In fact, we went another step and said that FPI themselves,

who sent the same message to the federal government, they are willing to engage

their boats into an offshore fishery, in the yellow tail flounder and the other

species that they are use to catching as long as scientists accompany them on

the boat and document all the information in cooperation with DFO scientists and

the fishermen themselves. It is the only way to get a true answer and we should

never make the mistake that we made in the past and not listen to the real

people, the people who have the best knowledge about the fishery are the

fishermen themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister realizes that. Minister, few people in

Newfoundland and Labrador really knew what the cod fishery meant to this

Province until it closed in 1992. Now we know the devastation it has caused in

rural areas of this Province. Minister, processors with harvesters licenses also

played a

part in the destruction and overfishing of our cod stocks. I ask the

minister if he considers it acceptable to allow processors to simply pull up

stakes and move out of towns - they have provided years of dedicated service to

this particular industry - without assuming any responsibility for the

devastation left behind, particularly when those same processors continue to

show millions of dollars of profits on a quarterly basis?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if we, in the future - the

people of this Province, the fisher people of this Province, or the processors,

or anybody engaged in the industry in this Province - put their dependency on

the cod fishery in the future, we are all going to be left sadly behind. Even if

the codfish were teeming as they were when John Cabot first came over to

Newfoundland and could dip them up in a basket, you wouldn't have the market for

them.

Since the closure of the cod fishery, other species of fish

have filled that gap in the market. We should never, ever do that again. The

species that we should be looking at in the future, or the way we should be

going in the future, is a multi-species operation, not depending on any one

species of fish.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is thinking wrong. His direction

is wrong, his focus is wrong, and that is the reason we have been looking at

shrimp, at caplin, at crab, all species and everything that is in that ocean.

Already now this year we are starting to process male caplin.

For the first time in our history we will be processing male caplin for food

consumption by humans, not by animals.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

the right direction.

What should a processor do? What can a processor do if there

are no fish to process in a facility? Can we operate 212 fish plants in the

future? No.

The policy of this government, which I introduced just a few

short weeks ago, is sixty-five core plants, multi-species operations,

established on a regional basis around this Province, not 212 or 250 or 300

plants like the former Tory government had in this Province.

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

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

question today is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

In the last few days we have been talking about rural

Newfoundland, and trying to talk of positive things and so on, just to remind

the minister and ask him just one question today, maybe two, on the food

fishery.

Last year, if you wanted to see a morale booster in rural

Newfoundland, it was when people could get in their boats and go out and jig a

fish. Of course, I guess there were so many petitions presented here last year.

In the last couple of weeks a lot of people in rural Newfoundland, as I

travelled up and down the coast last week, were asking me about the food fishery

again. It was a morale booster. The people of the Province, Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, conducted themselves very well last year. I was very proud of

them, and they enjoyed getting back on the water to jig a fish.

With the signs of the stocks recovering and so on, I would

just like to ask the minister if he has been in consultation with the minister

in Ottawa lately and what his considerations are for the food fishery for this

year.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bonavista

South just asked me what my recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans Canada would be for a commercial fishery along the Northeast Coast.

We have seen demonstrations over the last number of days and

weeks all around the Province of Newfoundland. We have seen people out there

crying out for work, crying out for the opportunity to get back into the

fishery, crying out for more money for the TAGS program to be extended. Just

imagine, if we said today that we are going to allow every individual in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to go out there for recreational cod

fishing, and people walking the shores with no opportunity to earn a living. If

you want to create chaos, there is a good way to create chaos in this Province

and turn people on.

There is a time and a place to discuss the reopening of a

recreational fishery, but not at the expense of the commercial fishermen who

depend on the fishery to earn a living for their families.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just asked a

question. Second of all, I never, ever considered a recreational fishery. All

last year, through some thirty or forty petitions I presented in this House, the

same argument has been - and I have talked to commercial fishermen who have

agreed with me - that a food fishery last year by this Province for the people

of this Province proved to be a good thing for everybody. They conducted

themselves very well and they caught fish for food.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SHELLEY: I would ask the minister about the

considerations for the food fishery, and does he see any regulation change or

timing for that food fishery for this year?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to

second-guess the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as to what time there

will be a recreational fishery this year. What I am trying to deal with, and

what we are trying to put in place, is an opportunity for commercial fishermen

to get back into the boats and earn a living, for those plant people who

depended on the processing industry to get an opportunity to work in a fish

plant.

Yes, a recreational fishery would be a good thing for this

Province, a food fishery, would be a good thing for those individuals, for a

weekend or two later in the fall, but we have to get our priorities straight.

Where should we focus? Who should we get back on the water first to earn a

reasonable living in the fishery? not only the cod fishery, the crab fishery,

the shrimp fishery, the sea cucumbers, the whelk fishery, but all species. Let

us talk about a commercial fishery wherever possible, so that fishermen,

themselves, and plant workers, can get back into earning a living. A

recreational fishery, September, October - maybe, if there are enough signs out

there that give us the opportunity to have a recreational fishery, but a

commercial fishery first.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the minister's statement today, I will ask the

minister if she can tell us how much the Province received for each of the eight

parks that were privatized and are announced for opening this week?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the process when all

of the parks have been announced, we will be making a statement outlining the

details of privatization.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have requested information

under the Freedom of Information Act; I requested information last week that the

minster promised to provide in twenty-four hours. Mr. Speaker, why can we not

get any information, especially on these eight parks that are announced today

for the opening later this week? Why is the minister hiding this information?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, part of the answer relates to the

fact that we are still negotiating and until we are finished the whole

twenty-one - eight have been concluded, and we will make a statement when we

have finished the process.

In relation to the rest of his question, remember very

clearly, his original request for information dealt with capital expenditures

that were carried out only in the parks that were to be privatized. The hon.

member did not ask for a full capital expenditure

summary, detailing all the

parks, and accordingly, it was not offered to him. We offered what he asked for.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will very gladly provide for

the media and for every member of this House the question that I asked, the

information that I requested in the Freedom of Information request, which was

very plainly, the total amount of public money put into each of the parks that

are up for privatization throughout the years, and that is not what the minister

provided. We still do not have that information.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask again: Can the minister and will the minister

provide the information to the public on the eight parks that are no longer

being negotiated, that are announced for opening this week?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the same answer.

When the process is complete, there will be a full reporting of the process.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that not ridiculous? They sold eight

parks and you cannot ask what they got for them.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

Research indicates, I say to the minister, that children who

grow up poor show almost three-and-a-half times the number of conduct disorders,

almost twice the chronic illnesses and more than twice the rate of school

problems; hyperactivity and emotional disorders of children who are not poor.

I ask the minister, in view of the evidence, base data, that

is available, what strategy she is contemplating to both intervene and to try to

prevent some of these conditions from continuing and what are you going to try

to do to address the issue of child poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is of

uppermost concern to the Department of Human Resources and Employment is the

whole issue of poverty, particularly as it pertains to children's interests. The

department, myself, my official are very well aware, keenly aware, of the issue

of poverty, of the impact that it has on the lives of people in this Province,

and particularly on the lives of children in the Province.

We know from the Health Forum which was held this weekend

that there is a real link between poverty and health. We recognize it as a

determinant of health. So, in that regard, we are certainly going to be working

very strenuously to address issues of poverty and child poverty. We are working

on the national child benefit and, of course, the agreements that have been

reached in this area. We will be developing strategies associated with this

which we think we will be able to apply directly to this issue and to make gains

in this area.

As I said, in all of the aspects of what the department is

doing in addressing human resource development for the Province as a whole, we

will be focusing quite keenly on the issue of children, on the issue of poverty

as it pertains to children. We will be using all of the resources that are at

our disposal, in conjunction, not only with the Federal Government, with our own

resources, but also with communities and with families, to try to co-ordinate

the response that takes place within this Province to enhance the lives of

children, and to alleviate as much as possible the impact of poverty on their

lives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following bills:

An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act;

An Act To Amend The Collections Act; and,

An Act To Amend The Direct Sellers Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Amendment To The City Of

St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act."

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Schools

Act, 1996," Bill 14.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Great response from this side.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

of this hon. House to present the following resolution:

WHEREAS our Province is celebrating the 500th year of

discovery of Newfoundland and Labrador by John Cabot; and

WHEREAS there has been a terrific effort gone into promotion

and planning for the celebration of this important milestone in our Province's,

indeed the nation's, history; and

WHEREAS the members of this hon. House play a significant

leadership role in their districts, and collectively for the Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that all members of this hon. House

actively promote these celebrations and help build on our tourism strength so

that we can make this year the biggest tourism year ever for this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of

Newfoundlanders who are petitioning the House to direct the government to

establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in

Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and give our children a

better chance.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of child poverty was raised in

Question Period by the Opposition House Leader. The new Minister of Human

Resources and Employment, while commenting on her concern about child poverty,

did not tell the members of the House that the number of children living in

poverty has increased by 50 per cent since the Liberal Government came into

power in 1989 in this Province. There has been an increase in child poverty by

50 per cent in that period from 1989 to 1995. Mr. Speaker, that was before this

particular government was elected.

Now that we have a new Minister of Human Resources and

Employment, I am going to ask her personally, in the House, along with the

Minister of Education, to revisit this issue. The Minister of Education has, in

the past, stated his support for the volunteer effort in providing school lunch

and school breakfast programs throughout the Province. But the minister will

know, as will the new Minister of Human Resources and Employment will know, that

the volunteer effort is not and cannot be adequate to provide a proper school

lunch program and a nutritional opportunity for every schoolchild in the

Province.

With the announcement by government yesterday of

evidence-based decision-making, I refer the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment to the report presented to the government by Dr. Patricia Canning

called Special Matters . That report underlined the problems of child

poverty within the education system, and child hunger as a deterrent, and not

only a deterrent, but as an impediment to children learning in school. If we are

going to have any success in overcoming the effects of child poverty, we have to

overcome the effects of child hunger on the ability of children to participate

fully in the education system.

I see the Minister of Education over there bowing his head. I

will not say hanging his head. He is thinking deeply about this problem because

he knows that his government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on our

education system, and he knows, as a result of Dr. Canning's report, that much

of this money is being wasted because hungry children cannot learn. He knows

that. He is trying to figure out how he can convince his colleagues in Cabinet -

I think he already has the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture convinced - to

support this program, and I want to give him every encouragement I can because

this is a very, very important issue. Some might say it is a non-partisan issue.

I cannot say that because it is a partisan issue. It is the Liberal Government

that has yet to deal with this issue, and the people on this side of the House

are trying to convince them to do it, so it has to be partisan until the

government takes it on as a great project to ensure that schoolchildren have an

opportunity to participate in the education system by having a full stomach, by

being able to at least go to school knowing that they can have a meal while they

are there, that they can participate in the educational program, that they can

learn and better themselves and hopefully get themselves into a better situation

than they find themselves in now where they are living below the poverty line,

where they have inadequate diets, where they are unable to properly support

their young, growing bodies and young, growing minds.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental issue of social justice.

It is a fundamental issue of human hunger. It is a fundamental issue that ought

to be addressed by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise again today

to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill

- Quidi Vidi.

During Question Period today I was drawing some information

from the proposal put forward by the Social Policy Advisory Committee in

preparation for the Strategic Social Plan.

Mr. Speaker, in that particular document it does indicate,

based on the research done by Dr. Canning and others, that children who grow up

poor show almost three-and-a-half times the number of conduct disorders, and

that is an alarming stat in itself, that poor children have a very much higher

incidence of conduct disorders, three-and-a-half times their non-poor peers.

Also, they have twice the chronic illnesses of their non-poor friends and peers

in their school system. They also have more than twice the rate of school

problems, hyperactivity and emotional disorders, as compared to those children

who are not poor.

Mr. Speaker, we know from experience, if you go into a school

system and look at the children who are in special education classes, and you

look at their family backgrounds, you will find that there are more children in

special education classes that come from poor families than there are from

non-poor families. If you look at the numbers who repeat their grades, you will

find again that there is a far higher incidence of that happening to families

where children are living in poverty than there are in cases where the family is

not living in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at all of this data... As the

Minister of Health said yesterday, this government now wants to be

evidence-focused in its decision-making. Well, I say to all members opposite,

where can you find more evidence than we have about child poverty? We have had

studies done by the Department of Education; they mentioned the Williams Royal

Commission Report. We have had studies done by the Department of Health; they

again turned out various reports, including Dr. Patricia Canning's report, and

in the Royal Commission on Education. We have studies that have been done by

social workers. We have had the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, when he

was Minister of Social Services, visit the school system; and he attests to the

improvements that have occurred when children had proper nutrition. There is

lots and lots of evidence.

Mr. Speaker, we are not saying, in saying this, however, that

all children in families who are poor encounter all of the negative problems

associated with child poverty. What we are saying is that if a child is poor

then the child's possibilities for reaching his or her potential is somewhat

reduced. In fact, it is substantially reduced as by the data that I was quoting

just a few minutes ago.

It is not satisfactory for us to tell a child: If you are

born poor then you have three-and-a-half times the probability of having a

conduct disorder than if you were not born poor; and it goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, these are not my words. I am not happy to stand

up here and have to say these things, but it is a mandate that this government

has to try to do something about child poverty. And when we hear the minister of

the day saying that she is thinking about this or thinking about that, well, you

know, there are 40,000 hungry children out there today who went to school and

did not have enough food to eat and we are saying to them: Now, would you

concentrate on your studies.

Mr. Speaker, children cannot concentrate when they are

hungry, nobody can, and as a consequence I say to the government: It is time now

for strong, bold action, time to do some of the things that we talk a lot about

but do not do a lot about. We have children out there today - this government

would not want to say that there is a crisis in child care, but there is a real

problem out there and when you have one-third of your school population that is

malnourished or has insufficient food, then we cannot simply say that we are

fulfilling our mandate to all the children. And we know that children are not

adequately represented in the corridors of power, children do not have a vote;

and the only power base they have is the advocacy they get from their parents

and from community groups and from us here in the House. So I say to the

government, the evidence is there, it shows that we should have something done,

it is time now to do something about it and have more programs in place for this

coming September.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of eighty

residents of the community of Jamestown. The petition reads:

Due to the deplorable condition of the gravel road in

Jamestown, we, the undersigned, make petition to have the 2.6 kilometres of

gravel road in Jamestown paved.

You notice, Mr. Speaker, they did not ask to have it upgraded

and paved; the road has already been upgraded but they need to have it paved.

Here is a situation, Mr. Speaker, once again, similar to the petition that I

presented here in the House yesterday from the residents of Winter Brook. This

is the community that is next to Winter Brook, I would say, about five

kilometres away from the community of Winter Brook and it is another area where

the pavement had stopped right at the intersection of Jamestown and Winter

Brook. The main street through this particular community, the little fork in the

road was allowed to be left unpaved and the eighty residents, Mr. Speaker, who

signed this petition are asking - a simple request - that the road through their

community be paved. They are asking that because they are fed up with the dust

and the dirt and the pot holes that they have been subjected to, and have had to

drive over all their lives. The price people pay today through taxes and

licences for their vehicles, taxes on the insurance for their vehicles,

registration for their vehicles should certainly allow people the opportunity to

drive over a decent road.

Normally, what you see in a community is that people do not

usually take pride in it until the road is paved. I have noticed that in a lot

of rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. The thing that causes people to

take pride in their communities is a little bit of pavement. Mr. Speaker, in

this particular community, people have taken pride while awaiting their

community roads to be paved. The houses in this particular community are

well-kept, well-maintained, a very picturesque, pretty, little community, but

the people living there cannot open their windows in summer, cannot put clothes

on the line in the summer, if they do, they will be subjected to the dust and

the dirt or the calcium that is tracked in over the kitchen floor every time

they use those particular roads.

Mr. Speaker, they are not looking for anything out of the

ordinary, it is a basic request; they are not looking for sidewalks or a stadium

or a civic centre. The one, little request is: to have government look at the

deplorable condition of the 2.6 kilometres of gravel road leading through their

community and ask to have it paved. There does not need to be any upgrading

done; all it needs, Mr. Speaker, is Class A stone put on the surface and

pavement laid after that. It is a simple request, and I ask the government and

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to pay attention to this

particular petition and do whatever can be done to provide those responsible

residents in the community of Jamestown the same opportunity that they see in

every other town and every other community in that particular area that they

drive through; that is, Mr. Speaker, pavement on their local roads.

I do not know how the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation can even justify not paving this particular

section of road when

you consider the cost that must be involved in maintaining it in a different

way, with different equipment than is brought forward and travelled down on a

regular basis from the depot up in Lethbridge by the mere fact of it being a

dirt road.

So, I ask the minister if he would pay attention to the

people here and if he would see fit to visit this particular area, see exactly

what the residents are talking about and hopefully, include funding in his

budget to have this particular road paved so that the residents of this

particular community might at least enjoy basic necessities in the world we live

in today.

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

MR. SHELLEY: On another petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is not speaking in support

of the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South, he is presenting a

new petition.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today - and I am glad the Minister of

Education is in the House because I am going to present a very serious petition

from students of H. L. Strong Academy in Little Bay Islands. I will read the

petition first and then make some comments.

To the hon. House of Assembly: We, the undersigned students

of H. L. Strong Academy, Little Bay Islands, hereby petition the hon. House of

Assembly to reconsider the unnecessary and extreme cuts being made to the

educational field. These cuts will have long-lasting detrimental effects on us,

the students of this Province. As a result of these cuts, our school is losing a

half special needs unit. We are a small school with a population of twenty-seven

students from Kindergarten to Level III. Many of us are receiving special help.

This unit in our school is essential and the loss of it will negatively affect

us, both in the short and long term.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition - I have had some

discussions back and forth with Ms Kim Locke who has kept in touch with me and

also, I have a letter here from the Mayor of Little Bay Islands, Mr. Speaker.

This community is very heavily affected, the whole community - not just the

school, the community itself - by this particular cut of the half unit. Although

that might not seem like a lot to some schools, some of the big schools here in

St. John's and other parts of the Province, but that half unit to H. L. Strong,

Mr. Speaker, means a lot to these students, to the teachers and to the community

as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I will just read from one of the letters that

was sent to Mr. Grimes, to the minister, from the Education Action Committee

chairperson, Ms Kimberly Locke. It states here in the letter that they wrote,

`It is only with the reinstatement of the programs we have lost over the last

two years that our students can even hope to get a quality of education

equivalent to that of other schools in this Province. Our special needs teacher

- and I would like to point this out to the minister while he is here in the

House - our special needs teacher has contributed tremendously to the

functioning of the school. Since she was hired, she has been doing full time

work for half time pay.' She is the one apparently in the library all the time,

who does all the work there. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also

inform the minister that she is the only qualified substitute teacher there.

Mr. Speaker, Little Bay Islands is, of course, an island and

it has a very specific problem when it comes to geography, when it comes to the

students and so on. It is an essential school and the K -Level III with some

twenty-seven students, calls for this special needs teacher. They have already

seen the cuts, Mr. Speaker, and they have tightened their belts. They have lost

their music teacher, physical education teacher and so on. And Mr. Speaker, I

have some major problems with it when they start losing those things because

the reading and so on, but these special needs teachers, art teachers, physical

education and so on is what makes the heart of the school and these people are

putting forward a very strong case.

All students in the school have signed it. I also have

petitions from parents. I have a letter from the Mayor, Elaine Simms of the town

of Little Bay Islands and, Mr. Speaker, the whole community is behind this. So I

am going to ask the minister to very seriously consider this request. As a

matter of fact, I will ask right here in the House today, a follow-up meeting to

speak with the minister, hopefully even today. That is how serious I think it

is, Mr. Speaker, that I should talk to him today. We should discuss the

situation with respect to H. L. Strong and how important this particular half

unit is to this school. It is not just a half unit that is not going to see an

effect. It is going to see an effect largely on the people who are most

vulnerable and who need the help more than any of us, the people who are

disabled in our society.

So, Mr. Speaker, this half unit strikes at the heart and the

core of this school, a very proud, very good school that has turned out some

fantastic students who have gone on to be successful producers in society.

So, Mr. Speaker, education on Little Bay Islands has a

particular twist to it because it is isolated, of course with respect to it

being an island, but that school has turned out some very good students and this

half unit for these students here is very important not just to the disabled

students at the school, but to the entire school. This teacher, from what I

hear, has done more than her share and also helped a lot of students alone the

way.

So, I strongly urge the minister and his department to have a

look at this situation and I will follow up with the meeting with him today,

hopefully and talk about this urgent matter and hopefully get a positive

response for the people at H.L. Strong and I also would like to commend the

action group for taking such time to keep in contact with me and get their views

heard here in the House of Assembly, that is what we are hear for and I am glad

we could get those points out to the minister while he is in the House today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague,

the member for Baie Verte.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I happened to have come across

some correspondence relative to this particular school and in particular some

information relative to a specific child. In this particular case the school

principal is indicating that without support for this particular child that that

child's education program is going to be in serious jeopardy.

This school does not have the option of going and saying: we

can send this child to a nearby school. This is the only school that is there,

it is the only choice they have. Therefore, the alternative would be to move

this child and the family to somewhere or have the child go back and forth to

the community that is a fair distance away and of course you have to go across

the water. That is not satisfactory.

When we talk about children here, we are talking about

equality of opportunity and why should this young child who goes to this

particular school have to say: I cannot have these services because my parents

live on an island and I cannot have the special teacher who is able to bring me

along and to be able to provide some semblance of an opportunity for this young

child and for his parents to be able to see that his education is progressing in

some meaningful manner.

Mr. Speaker, there are two problems here. One is this

particular child, it is a fact that we put this child back into a regular

classroom with a child who is not able to function properly, the impact that it

is going to have on the other children. So, we have a double edged negative

sword here, where the child is going to be unhappy because of the fact that the

child is loosing the special needs teacher that he has been able to have access

to over the last numbers of years. Secondly, the other parents are going to be

unhappy because you are going to have a child that is going to school and with

every possibility, every expectation is that the child will become more

disruptive and dysfunctional. There is a very high risk here for the individual

child that has the disability and there is a very high risk for the other school

children, as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Education,

that we have made some big changes in education. I am one who has been on record

as saying, I am very proactive when it comes to changes for the better, but I

also have to draw the ministers attention, we have a lot of small schools out

there and we cannot jeopardize the education of the children because they happen

to live on an island and they are in an isolated area of the Province.

So, we need a strong small school policy and a child centre

policy that address the special needs of children like the children who go to

the school in Little Bay Islands attending H.L. Strong Academy.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge the House to look at the human

aspects of taking away this teacher and to look at the children themselves and

ask yourself the very basis question, is this fair to the child and fair to the

family that is involved?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve

itself into Committee of Supply to consider the head under order 2(

a) starting

with Executive Council. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I would move at this time that the House not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m., and that we would maybe move from 6:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

and maybe let the parliamentary clock run again, as we did yesterday evening.

Could we do that? Can we have that agreement today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

again?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the House not adjourn

at 5:00 p.m.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that the House not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Opposed?

Carried.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the

Minister of Justice is going to be substituting for the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board. Under Executive Council, I'm just going to flip through some of

the headings here, and any particular questions that - I'm sure the minister has

notes available on most of these.

Under Premier's Office, 2.1.01, under Transportation and

Communications, and I guess travel expenses for the Premier that are covered by

the public treasury, I guess they are all under Transportation and

Communications. Would I assume that is correct, or are there other expenses that

are not included under this heading?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So maybe I could just ask a few

questions and then give you an opportunity to respond, rather than run down

through dozens of questions at the one time, if that is possible.

I'm sure the minister has available too, under this heading,

all the trips that the Premier has taken at public expense, we will say, in the

last fiscal year. He should have a breakdown of those. I'm sure they must be

available because I know I heard them mentioned. I even heard them in the media,

I heard them on radio one morning, reference to trips. I'm sure there must be a

detailed account of all the Premier's travel expenses. I would certainly be

interested in seeing a copy of that. I know it isn't a big number to tabulate.

That should be done very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, while you have mentioned that now, I

certainly would like a breakdown of his expenses related to his travel. I think

that is only appropriate. Hotel and other basic costs of travel. I'm sure it is

in the public interest to the Province to know how much our Premier is spending,

how he is spending it, where he is spending it, and other related costs

pertaining to that. I heard in the media it was about $100,000 for the year. I'm

wondering if that is just his travel. Does that include his hotel and meals and

basic other costs? I would be interested in getting the details on that. While

he is there he has rented cars and all other things. Yes, and I've already

asked: Could I assume it is all under subitem .03 under the Premier's Office? We

would be interested in knowing.

Maybe the minister could tell us too, while we are on travel,

has he any more excursions planned on his Churchill Falls trips around the

world? I know he started off he was going to do very extensive travelling. When

he got to his secret little paper in Montreal he found the document that has

been around that said nothing. I guess all the air came out of the balloon and

he had to follow up with a couple of other engagements. It wasn't the worldwide

excursion he was planning on. I'm just wondering if there are some other costs

and planned costs in that particular area that he is planning on expending.

Also, I would be interested in knowing, when he travelled

last year to Hamilton to campaign with Sheila Copps, on that date, did the

Province pay for that or was it paid by the Liberal Party?

I guess, for that matter, when he went up to fund-raise in

New Brunswick - I know I was in Ottawa at the time on this education issue - and

he didn't come back. He had to go to a fund-raising dinner the next day in New

Brunswick. Those related costs for the New Brunswick Liberal Party, I am

certainly interested in the expenses there, if the taxpayers paid for those, or

whether they were paid or reimbursed for political purposes, and if they are

located here under this item under the Premier's Office, or if the Premier, like

the former Premier when he travelled, does he charge it off to tourism when it

is a tourism venture? Does he charge it off to some other department if it is in

industry, trade and technology? In industry, trade and technology, the travel

budget is probably big enough, I say to the minister. I am not sure if there is

any more room to push a few more dollars in there. I think that is pretty well

full, but we would certainly be interested in knowing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Member for Baie Verte

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There couldn't be a better return on your

investment. The trip that he took, I say to the Member for Baie Verte, when he

went to Italy he brought back seventy-five and possibly 200 jobs. I ask the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: List out all of the jobs you brought

back. Can you tell us where they all are? We should be sending the Member for

Baie Verte more often. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should be

inviting the Member for Baie Verte to accompany him, because everything he

touches turns to gold. Good advice, I am sure, for the minister. I am sure the

minister, in his travel... We dealt with that in industry, trade and technology;

I won't get into that at the moment.

Certainly with reference to those expenses, I am not sure

whether the minister wants to respond to any of these before we build up too

many of these questions.

Also, I would like to ask the minister - he should know this

one offhand, I think - under allowance and assistance here in item 9, under the

Premier's Office, I would assume that is the $20,000 entertainment allowance

that is given to the Premier - would that be correct - to entertain in his home?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

last year?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He said he didn't have a home to entertain

in - he told us that all during the year - and he gets more. In that case he was

doing a bit of shuffling back and forth. I am interested in why it is up to

$23,500. Did we spend an extra $3,500 for the Premier when it was generally

agreed that he would get an extra $20,000; and now it is down to $20,000 this

year. It certainly wasn't a budget, I can assure you, for the Leader of the

Opposition. They don't give us a budget for those things, as the minister is

quite aware. Why was that increased?

Also, I asked, in item 09 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, why was it up from $20,000 for

entertaining in his home to $23,500 when the Premier hasn't been in his home

very much to entertain. You have to spend a lot of money to spend $23,500 to

entertain in your home when you are only in your home probably fifty or 100

times a year, or less. That is a big price.

I am just wondering, too, if this includes cleaning, upkeep,

renovations, catering, any other activities in the Premier's personal home, or

is this just a straight, outright, non-accountable expense? I am understanding

that it is an unaccountable expense; he doesn't have to substantiate it with

costs, that he is just given a $20,000 cheque to entertain or not to entertain

and he still gets the money. We would certainly be interested in having a

response to that.

Of course, we have had a very significant increase, as I just

mentioned, a really big increase, a 15 per cent increase basically, or more, in

the cost of that amount there. I would certainly like a justification there.

We saw a reduction in Transportation and Communications of

$51,000. I mean, this Premier has travelled more extensively than any other

premier. He is in Ottawa again today. He is in Europe, he went to Vancouver,

went to Ottawa for the announcement of the federal election, then he went to

Vancouver, then he went to Bristol, then he went to Aberdeen, then he came back

again. Now he is gone to Ottawa again. How would we spend $51,000 less on a

budget like that? It must be included somewhere else. I can't see it all being

included there, so a breakdown of that item would be much appreciated.

I know the Premier doesn't use a car and personal chauffeur

any more, but I'm sure there are some -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Anybody who smokes long cigars they

should pay for them themselves, I say to the minister. They shouldn't have

taxpayers of the Province paying for the cigars. If he uses a chauffeur, how

often, what arrangements, what costs? Are we still picking up a cost associated

with chauffeuring? I would like to know what the cost is. I might add, there are

occasions when the Premier does need to have that service. I don't deny that

right.

I will certainly give the minister some time to respond

there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is asking

for some expenses, of course, which I'm not carrying around in the back of my

head, and I will undertake to get them for him over the next matter of hours.

The Premier's travel, as he pointed out, is recorded there.

There are two sections. There is the $16,700, which is up $500 from last year,

and then under the Premier's Office there is Transportation and Communications,

which is down by $51,000. The hon. member seems to be suggesting that there is

probably travel hid away somewhere else. I will undertake to get the actual

travel. The member wants the number of trips last year. I don't have that in the

back of my head either.

The future for the Churchill Falls plan. I'm not sure how

much of that we are prepared to make public at this time, but it is a matter

which is still under consideration by government, and we certainly hope to deal

with that. The Hamilton trip campaigning for Sheila Copps. I'm not sure that the

Premier was even campaigning for Sheila Copps. I think he happened to be in the

area at the time, and the same with the fund-raising in New Brunswick. I will

certainly undertake to get that for him.

The $20,000 allowance. That was brought in when the former

Premier Wells was the premier. I remember it was strongly supported by

Opposition members at the time. Because it was costing us a considerable amount

of money, whenever visiting dignitaries had to be entertained by the Premier, to

take them down to the Newfoundland Hotel or the Radisson or whatever. It was

costing an extreme amount of money. Premier Wells started the practice of

inviting them into his house, and Premier and Mrs. Tobin are doing the same

thing.

Prior to that, when dignitaries visited, quite often they

were taken out and entertained. or in some cases they were even taken to the

private dining room which former governments had. It was started by Mr.

Smallwood and it was not - although during the campaign Mr. Moores and those did

use it in their campaign, and criticised it, they somehow overlooked closing the

private dining room. Quite out of character of course for Mr. Peckford, he too

kept the private dining room alive, and it was not until Mr. Wells came in that

the private dining room was closed down.

I should tell hon. members that just after the government

changed my colleagues who are sitting here today took over the old offices, and

some of the standing orders that we found in the ministers' offices, in the

Premier's office, were quite something. Standing order for liquor, standing

order for special fish out of Fishery Products International, standing orders

for cases of cigarettes, standing orders for cigars, you know. I don't think we

will find any of these standing orders left because we have a much more

efficient government.

I will make the details available to the hon. member over the

next few hours, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister has provided some background information on what

was spent here in the dining room, on liquor, cigarettes, cigars and whatever.

It is something that I do not support or we do not support, and we have it

indicated. If anyone did spend money on cigars out of taxpayers' money, they

should have to pay for it and reimburse themselves. Is the minister implying

that when dignities come in now they go to the Premier's home, they are wined

and dined there, they do not go to a hotel? They are not entertained anywhere

else? Is that what the minister is telling us? If they are going to be

entertained in the Premier's home, the Premier will not be there most of the

time I can tell him. The Premier will not even be there - he will be in Japan

and China and Vancouver. And he was campaigning with Sheila Copps. It was

carried on television. I saw him there and I saw him speaking at a fund-raising

Liberal dinner the day after I was in Ottawa with him, I say to the minister.

And we should know if the taxpayers are paying for those trips, that is all I am

asking, no big deal. If Peckford did something that he should not have done, he

should be held accountable. It is the right thing. I did not support giving an

unaccountable $20,000 to the Premier. I recognize the right -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know. I cannot speak for

everybody. I can only speak for myself and my caucus. I am the longest serving

member here, out of ours, so anybody else who came here after me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, exactly. No, I am the

longest serving here out of the nine of us, and I am not bragging about it at

all, maybe I am complaining about it. I am just saying - I indicate that I do

not have any problem when the Premier entertains in his home, dignitaries into

this Province. I do not have a problem with his getting reimbursed for those

expenses. It is only right. It is only to be expected and he should not have to

bear that personal cost - that is what I am stating. But there is an increase of

17.5 per cent last year to entertain in his home. He either did a lot of

entertaining when he was here - and the minister said he would provide some

information on it.

I certainly hope that the information will be provided, so

that we will know why it has increased, why this Premier is a more expensive

Premier, why he is more lavish than others, why he spends so much time

entertaining here in the Province when he is not even in the Province very much.

That does not figure. He either has expensive tastes - maybe the $300 or $400

bottles of wine instead of the normal regular one. If that is the type of

entertainment -

Maybe the minister can tell us, too, if the Premier has any

particular services like a bodyguard, that we pay certain costs there. That is

something that we should be aware of, if there are costs incurred in those

areas. I am sure the minister can respond to that, too, in due course.

Under Premier's Office: we do know that the Premier, on his

short stint in Ottawa as a Cabinet Minister, spent $140,000 on renovating his

office in a short period of time. He spent more money on office furniture than

the Prime Minister, bigger travel budget than the Prime Minister. I am just

wondering if any work has been done in his office since he took over here? Is it

included? Where is it located, the details and the costs? Are they in the

Premier's office subhead here or where are they located?

In Executive Council: I ask the minister, Has there been any

renovations in Executive Council? It is my understanding that the policy

analysis branch was moved down to the ground floor from the tenth floor - I

believe it was located there. So if the minister could inform us, basically the

details of that move and what the total costs associated with it are - maybe the

bill for the whole thing.

Maybe he could give us an overall figure of what it cost to

renovate - actually, from the sixth floor up to the eleventh has been changed

over the past few years, all those floors - an estimate of what those costs

were, so we can have an idea of what the expenditures have been specifically in

those areas. We know lots of expenses are justified and they have to be dated.

We do not doubt that at all, but there has to be accountability, too, on

expenditures of public dollars.

I ask the minister if any of the furnishings in the Premier's

office have been replaced, if there are costs incurred in those specific areas.

As has happened in a lot of cases in the past, maybe some of the old material

was moved out that was not necessarily old. The former Premier, I remember,

changed the whole ceiling and had a tremendous amount of work done in his office

to add to the decor to his liking. I am wondering whether this Premier is in

that category, that he spends sufficient time here that he needs to have office

changes and adjustments. If so, what has the cost has been for that? Sometimes I

know minor changes normally occur. I am not really interested in those minor,

little, nitty-gritty details, but in any renovations of a significant nature

involving thousands of dollars - if it is being done. I ask the minister, too,

if the Executive Council has recently renewed lease space for offices anywhere

in the Province under these particular headings in this part of the Budget. I

will certainly give the minister an opportunity to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR DECKER: The hon. member asked about a bodyguard. I

remember, first when I was elected and was in Opposition, I was trying to figure

out what the ghost car was doing parked in Premier Peckford's parking space. He

used one of those armoured cars with the flashing lights hidden under the

bumpers and he used to have a bodyguard. We have not - unless there has been

some change in the last twenty-four hours, there has not been any perceived need

as to why the Premier should have a bodyguard. He does not have a bodyguard, to

the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. If that is wrong, I will certainly take

it under advisement.

From time to time, whether you are a Premier or a Cabinet

Minister or just a member of this House, if there were any threat on your life

or anything, the police themselves would decide whether or not it would be in

the interest of the person who is threatened to provide a bodyguard, but that

has not been necessary since Mr. Tobin has been Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is

listening outside - I know he had to leave for a few minutes. But, I go up to

the Premier's office, like most ministers, on an average of probably a couple

times a month, or maybe more often than that, and I can assure the hon. member

that there are no renovations to the Premier's office since he has taken office

in February of last year. As a matter of fact, the exact, same furniture is

there now that Premier Wells had, and I would think some of that furniture goes

way back to former Premiers. So, no, there are no major expenses. I do not know

- there might be a few minor things of which I am not even aware. The hon.

member said he was not concerned about minor details. I cannot answer for what

the Premier might have done when he was a minister in Ottawa. I think that was

dealt with on a different level.

The Executive Council did move from one place to another and

except for the ordinary costs of moving, there were no major expenses there, to

my knowledge. The hon. member asked about some new space; he wanted to know if

there is any new space being leased for any additional changes or any additional

space required, and he is probably referring to page 21 under 2.4

(01) Executive

Support. I think it has been made public that the Labrador and Aboriginal

Affairs Secretariat, which we did not fund for a full year last year, we have

funded that but we are using the same space that we used last year for that, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I heard the minister mention, when I was coming in - I did

not catch it completely, but under I think, Aboriginal Affairs, he made some

reference?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. That is right. I guess the reason for

the new cost there would be that there has been a new position created, as I am

sure he is well aware.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) that is why there is $324,000

this year versus $299,000 last year, but last year it was only funded for part

of the year and this year it is going to be a full year funding.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is my understanding - I looked at

the salary book there - there is a deputy minister status in there, an extra

salary brought in last year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Last year. when the new secretariat was set

up there had to be a person in charge of it and that was done last year, but the

reason the amount is a little more this year is because it is funded for the

full year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is mentioned there under the Secretary

to Cabinet $100,445 listed in the salary details, would be the salary

(inaudible) which would be deputy minister status, basically.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: I would assume, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe the minister, when he gets a minute,

would give us an update, especially in this area, what is happening with land

claims, aboriginal claims, and particularly as it relates to Voisey's Bay,

because that is an area of great concern here in the Province. The Province is

eager to move forward. We do not want to see things stalled here. There are a

lot of jobs depending on that opportunity, and the faster we can get it moving

the better it can be for the economy of our Province. So, when the minister gets

a moment he might give us an update on that.

Intergovernmental Affairs: In that area, too, are there

particular - that is on page 19, I just skip back there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 20 or 19?

MR. SULLIVAN: Page 19 - it carries over on page 20; if

there are plans or what is allocated in terms of coming up this year, like a

First Ministers' or the Premiers Atlantic Provinces, the New England - in that

area, you could update us on what exactly is upcoming under that aspect this

year compared to last year. Because they are normally - the Premiers and the

Governors, is that every two years, a bi-annual conference, rather than an

annual one?

So, if the minister could take a moment just to update us on

those two items in Intergovernmental Affairs: what is happening in terms of

conferences, whether it is the Maritime, the New England one, the First Minsters

here or the Premiers just in Atlantic Canada, etc. and aboriginal land claims -

maybe an update overall and the budget implications of that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member is probably

aware, the land claims, there was a little bit of a problem there for a while

and the Premier suggested that negotiations would be - What is the right word?

not `halted', but they were interrupted for a period for both parties to

regroup. Generally speaking, on most issues, land claims are progressing quite

well. There is a genuine desire on both sides to speed up the land claims,

especially with the Labrador Inuit Association. A few weeks ago there was an

interpretation, but since then it has been agreed that land talks will resume

and the Labrador Inuit Association, when their board met just recently, they

gave the go-ahead for their negotiators to resume negotiations. So I would think

over the next little while negotiations will resume again.

In Intergovernmental Affairs, last year was a pretty busy

year for Newfoundland. Every year, the Premiers, the First Ministers, meet

somewhere in the country, or when the Prime Minster is not present, they go from

province to province. Last year, we had the meeting of the Premiers for all of

Canada. They met here, and the Premiers and the New England Governors also met

here. Now, it will be another ten years before that rolls around again, so that

is not anticipated this year, to the best of my knowledge. I think I have

covered all the points.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: With respect to page 15, I just flip back

to my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South's favourite aspect. Did the

government carefully consider options to operating Government House, the

Lieutenant-Governor's official residence? Because I know at the time of the

swearing-in ceremony, I was asked a question there and had a particular comment

at the time and the Premier did indicate to the media at that time: Now is not

the time to discuss that. So he certainly gave the implications that it is on

the front burner and it is being discussed.

I am certainly interested in knowing if that is being

pursued. If it is being pursued, it may have certain value, certain aesthetics,

history and pomp, to it, rather than the economics of it. If that be the case,

has there been some effort to maintain that with help, other than from our

Treasury? Whether it be the Federal Government, whether it be the British Crown

or whatever, if we are going to maintain - I am sure they would be quite

interested in contributing to that cause.

We see constitutionally why a Lieutenant-Governor must be

there, and that is something that cannot be addressed here in our Province. Of

course, the salary is covered by the Federal Government. But with reference to

staff and support and location, these can vary from province to province,

depending upon the ability of the province to be able to pay and what its

priorities in spending are. I am certainly interested in knowing about those

particular aspects.

There seems to be just a slight increase here in salary. From

last year, it went up from budgeted to actual, $19,000, and we have an increase

of another $20,000 this year. There has been an increase in that area. When the

minister stands he probably could tell us why there has been a jump in salary in

this item, and why there is an increase in cost of Government House as opposed

to last year, whether it has to do with Cabot 500 or whatever.

Also, I guess, basically, Cabot 500, what costs are

associated with the Royal Visit? Does the Province cover, and which ones is it

not going to cover? Is the Premier anticipating a major increase in his travel

budget basically also because of this? Extra Protocol -if I remember correctly,

last year, Protocol was moved out of Executive Council. It used to be in

Executive Council, I think, up to a year ago or more, and then last year I think

they moved it from Executive Council and placed it under the

Lieutenant-Governor's establishment. I am just wondering what the specific plans

are there.

We have Purchased Services, as we see here, under Protocol.

We have a big increase. I imagine a lot of that has to do with the Cabot 500,

that has to do with the Queen's visit here. When I was in Happy Valley - Goose

Bay last week, I heard a figure that just the cost - I think the Queen is going

to be attending there in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. The cost is in the tens of

thousands of dollars just to go in and out of there.

Maybe if I could leave it with those two items. The

Lieutenant-Governor, Government House, we will say, and the Protocol aspect. The

minister could just enlighten us a little on that and put some information

regarding those two headings.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked about

Government House. This has been a favourite whipping boy for the longest time.

Members have been suggesting that maybe we should not be having our

Lieutenant-Governor reside in Government House. As the hon. member knows, I am

sure, across the country, many of the provinces do have the Lieutenant-Governor

living in his own private residence, and then to perform various functions of

state, he will do that either in some special building, in the House of

Assembly, or some rental space.

I remember when the question was asked by the Leader of the

Opposition at the time of our swearing in. Under Program Review, when we looked

at all the government expenses, as the hon. member points out, the Federal

Government pays the salary and some of the support expenses for the

Lieutenant-Governor. However, it is the Province which must pay for the

residence and the upkeep of the residence and all that sort of thing. One of the

things we did look at was whether or not we would ask the Lieutenant-Governor -

and in view of the fact that a new Lieutenant-Governor was being appointed -

whether we would ask that he would live in his own house and maybe keep a part

of Government House for various functions, or have him use the House of

Assembly.

When we sized it all up, we came to the conclusion that even

if the Lieutenant-Governor did not live in that building, the Province would

still have to maintain it. You could not let the place fall to the ground. It

has a history that goes back into the last century. I am not sure, if you put it

on the market, that there would be a line-up of people wanting to buy Government

House as a residence, or for any conceivable reason. It is definitely a part of

our heritage, so we cannot just allow the building to disintegrate. We cannot

allow the building to stay there unless we maintain it. So the cost, I believe,

and I stand to be corrected, was close to $300,000 just to maintain the

residence if there were nobody living in it. We would have to do the grounds; we

would have to keep the heat and light on; we would have to have staff there

twenty-four hours a day, around the clock, to protect it from vandalism and all

of that. When we looked at the cost of maintaining an empty building, we came to

the conclusion that we would not be saving very much money if the

Lieutenant-Governor lived in his own house, as do some Lieutenant-Governors in

the country.

The member is quite right when he picks up the extra costs of

protocol. That has to do with the official visit by Her Majesty this summer

because of the Cabot Celebrations. Virtually all of the costs, the increases

under this page, under the Executive Council, the Lieutenant-Governor's

establishment, are related to the Queen's visit and the Cabot Celebrations.

The member asked about who pays, and the reality is that when

the Queen visits Canada, Canada pays for most of it. Then, if she makes trips to

various provinces, the provinces do pick up a proportion of that visit.

The hon. member talked about the Happy Valley trip. The

itinerary has not been fully put in place yet and we are not sure as to whether

or not that part of the trip will be taking place, but we do know that there was

substantial cost involved there had she gone in, and that part of it is being

reviewed. It has not been decided yet, but I suppose the short answer is that

Canada will pay the bulk cost. She is the Queen of Canada, and when she comes to

Canada, Canada is responsible for the cost of bringing her here. The same was

true with the other countries of the world, of the Commonwealth, where they

recognize Queen Elizabeth as their Queen -the country takes responsibility - but

then we, being a Province of Canada, of course, and she is coming here

specifically for our celebrations this year, we will be expected to pick up part

of that cost.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 16, under Cabinet Secretariat, there is an increase

in salaries from $639,000. It was projected last year at $660,000 but was

$639,000 and is back up to $660,000. Why would the particular salary be

increased there? I do not know if there is any particular change in the numbers

of executive support. I have not looked at the specific numbers from the

details; I just went through generally in comparison to the Departmental Salary

Details.

I understand, the salary for the Clerk of the Executive

Council and Secretary to Cabinet was, I think, increased last year, but that

only took effect about a year ago, anyway, so that should not be changed

substantially from last year to this year. That is about the same, I would

assume, so I do not think it would be attributable to that particular source

only. There should be some others.

Looking at Executive Council, an increase of $21,000

basically, it is about a 3.- some per cent increase. Maybe the minister might be

able to let us know: Have there been changes overall, maybe step progressions

under the Hay system? I was just wondering. I guess they have been occurring, I

would assume, on an ongoing basis, their step progressions. I know there have

not been wage increases as such, but I would assume some of it could be

attributable there, and whether a 3.5 per cent increase would be relegated to

this particular section. Maybe that is the reason; I do not know. I am sure the

minister could let us know, too, when he speaks, whether their different steps

on the progression there are accountable for some of those salary increases,

where there are increases.

I understand, too, that even though the salaries are locked

in here, they are in the Estimates, the salary detail book does not correspond

with the Estimates because, it is my understanding, probably in doing the detail

book, the positions that are going to be retained within each department and

where they are going to be moved was not determined, basically, over all,

probably, the specifics, when the Budget was brought down, and what effect it is

going to have in replacing people through the bumping process and how they might

be allocated, whether that had an impact. Because you cannot get a balance on

the numbers here and here in the book. Whether that is part of the reason...

I am sure government knew when they set down their salary

allocations how many they were going to retain within that specific division or

that particular department, or under Executive Council here. I am sure that

should have been determined, and there should be a very close estimate. It is

just that the Salary Details did not follow in line with that. What the reason

is, I do not know. I do not know if the minister can provide it, but they do not

balance. They do not check out, in other words.

Also, just turn to page 24. Under the public sector

negotiations, which specific ones is government preparing for here? I understand

there is a fair number of contracts. I think my colleague - are there

twenty-some - I am not sure what the specific numbers are under the collective

bargaining process to be negotiated. I am not sure exactly what the details for

upcoming negotiations are, but funding has dropped. Is there reason to believe

now that there are not going to be much negotiations? There is a small drop, I

know, here under President of Treasury Board, from Transportation and

Communications and some other related costs. Purchased Services costs are down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you now?

MR. SULLIVAN: 3.1.01, on the top of page 24. Does that

mean we are going to turn the clock back, we are not going to have any

negotiating? The minister knows all about that, I am sure. He is an expert on

that legislation. Was it Bills 16 and 17, I believe, and whatever else? Then we

had to come in with, what - Bill 64, to try to do a little bit of balancing

there. Does it mean that the day of collective bargaining is over now and we are

just going to tell everybody what they are going to get and no negotiations in

the process?

A couple of points. Maybe the minister can just update us a

little on what is happening under those items.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member refers to

Executive Support and the reduction in salary last year, and we are back up now.

The actual amount is $660,200. That is what we have been budgeting for some

years. Last year, there was a brief period of time when there was a vacancy

there, and that picks up the $21,000 that you are talking about. That has

subsequently been filled and we are back to the $660,200, and we will continue

with that.

The member spoke about step progressions. The whole civil

service is entitled to step progressions, whether you are in the union or

whether you are not. Even though previous Administrations - we did, out of

necessity, have to put wage freezes on. We were able to maintain the step

progressions. People who have not reached the top step have indeed been getting

step progressions.

The member talks about negotiations, collective bargaining.

He is quite right. We do have a lot of the contracts which have expired and are

up to be renegotiated. I know the teachers' contract is up to be renegotiated,

and NAPE, and a whole lot of contracts. I can tell the hon. member that we

certainly have no intention of overruling any contracts and negotiations.

Negotiation will take place. As the hon. member knows, we are a government who

have no intention or desire to ride roughshod over our employees. We have the

utmost respect for them. We certainly will negotiate hard and we will expect

them to negotiate hard and at the end of the day we will reach a contract that

both parties can live with. We will be more than pleased to live by the contract

that we negotiate, Mr. Speaker, but we are not going to - we are spending

taxpayers money so government is obligated to make sure that we can get the

services at the least possible cost to taxpayers. Union representatives are

concerned with their membership and they want to make sure that they get the

best possible remuneration and the best possible contract that they can get for

the membership. That is the essences of collective bargaining, where the two

parties sit down and negotiate as equals. At the end of the day you arrive at a

contract and you live by that contract and this government is most anxious to

continue with the negotiations with all of our employees, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well now wasn't that a brilliant speech for the minister who

sat and voted and presided over stripping contracts? He negotiated in good

faith, turned around then and turned the clock back, tore up those contracts and

said what we gave you we are not going to honour now and brought legislation in

this House. To have the audacity and the face to stand up here seriously and

keep a serious face on him and tell us that they are going to negotiate in good

faith. Now minister, don't try to sell that to us and don't try to sell it to

the people of the Province. The people of the Province have all kinds of faith

in your negotiations and all types of your tactics and history will show it. The

evidence is there in legislation. Talk to the groups out in the Province, the

public sector unions in the Province who had to negotiate with this government

and the previous government in particular and they will find out that what the

minister is saying is not something that he practices. It is something he

preaches but it is not something he practices. So let practice speak. Let not

speech dictate that what actually occurs in practice be the determining factor

and let people draw their conclusions on that, not what the minister likes to

tell us. I told him before, he is the best actor on that side of the House. He

has not had a chance to do as much acting lately but he is the best actor over

there. When the time comes he can put off a good show.

I am just wondering, page 23 deals with the Women's Policy

office, there is a reduction of about $100,000 on a budget of $660,000. So we

have a substantial reduction in budget, a 15 per cent reduction in budget there.

I ask the minister, is that indicative of his government's effort to enhance

economic and social status of women in this Province by cutting their budget by

almost $100,000? Cutting Salaries by $60,000? Cutting Purchased Services, an

extra - and in that too there could be certain contractual services and other

arrangements because it is very difficult to pinpoint exactly what goes out in

salary. Of course there are contractual arrangements there and there is a

significant reduction. Overall in the Women's Policy office, in particular

Women's Policy period, there is a reduction also in total.

The total to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has

been maintained, the same amount but the total amount allocated under Women's

Policy is down by $95,000. So that is a significant reduction in the budget

there for a government that wants to place emphasis on women - the same

government I might add, the same government now, the same Minister of Justice

who is going to put to the courts, he is going to challenge an arbitration

ruling that wanted to give equal pay for equal work, that said women in this

Province should get the same pay for doing the same work and this government

says no because we have some legal basis, which he will find out. They thought

they had a legal basis on Trans City and they found out. They are being found

wrong in the courts again. They kept challenging it. Why drag the people of the

Province through hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs, in the millions of

dollars legal fees and for costs and then having to pay it in the final analysis

here, when you have an opportunity now to deal with it up front.

You know, why shouldn't women get paid the same as men for

doing the same job? Members in the House of Assembly get paid the same, but out

in the workforce unfortunately, in certain jobs specific classification, certain

sectors, they are not recognized and are not considered equal and that is wrong,

whatever the law tells us which I am sure you will find out tells us

differently, but whatever it says, we should not have to appeal something to a

court to take action to try to justify why we should be paying women less than

we should be paying men. That is ridiculous, it is an insult to women and at the

same time you slashed $100,000 out of their policy office that is supposed to

enhance the opportunities of the Social Status of Women in the Province.

So I would certainly like to hear the minister's reasoning

for doing that; his reasoning for not paying women the same in the workforce

today and why the Budget item here in 2.7.01 is cut by approximately 15 per cent

because of that. Also, I want to draw attention to page 26 I say to the

minister, French language training; I will just ask these two and then I will

give him an opportunity to respond. On French language training on page 26: Is

the Premier's French lessons included in here, I ask the minister, a public

expense? I would like to know if they are included in this particular amount and

if they are, how much, what is it costing?

MR. DECKER: Which Premier are you talking about?

MR. SULLIVAN: Premier Tobin, I am just wondering if the

French lessons that he is taking are included in this item or are they his own

private lessons to enhance his federal-political career, or is the Liberal Party

paying for those? Is it possible or his own provincial Party? Maybe the

taxpayers might be delighted to pay for these; hopefully he will move on and

stop the devastation he is causing here in the Province. Also, I am interested

in knowing about the translation of government documents into French, what is

the basic cost that is included there? That is probably under, I would imagine,

Purchased Services or Professional Services I would assume. Yes, Professional

Services I guess, in translation of certain documents; I would imagine

translation on the Constitutional Amendment and things like general

documentation that our Province needs to deal with; it would be interesting to

know the specifics of those. So I will give the minister an opportunity

especially on the Women's Policy Office and the area on French language training

that we just looked at on page 26, to indicate the reasons for those

expenditures, and certainly we are very eager to know if the Premier's French

lessons are paid for by the Province or by himself personally.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member goes through

the Budget here and finds examples of where we have actually reduced

expenditures, and he gets all excited about that but, you know, go through the

whole Budget and you will find that the overall Budget has been reduced. Now

that is something we are taking great pride in, we are bragging about that; we

are glad to tell taxpayers of the Province that we have reduced the overall

Budget.

Now, when you reduce the Budget, you have to take it from

individual departments and individual secretariats and individual programs and

one of those is the Women's Policy office. We have an excellent minister

responsible for the Status of Women, Mr. Chairman, and -

MR. SULLIVAN: Who is that?

MR. DECKER: Who is that, he says. We have an excellent

minister who is doing a great job. Now, you see, the hon. member is

contradicting himself. I am just looking at their own Blue Book, they used to

call it. They talked about what they were going to do. They were going to

abolish the payroll tax; they were going to cut taxes but yet, they were going

to balance the Budget in four years. Okay, and he goes on to say: Government

governing involves making choices; often these choices are difficult. Tell us

about it, Mr. Chairman, tell us about it. That is exactly what we did and if you

go through the whole Budget you will find that in almost everything that

government does, we made some reductions.

MR. H. HODDER: Who is the minister responsible for the

Status of Women, minister?

MR. DECKER: Within the last five minutes it was Julie

Bettney, I do not know if they changed it, you have some knowledge that I do

not.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, they are having

great fun. We are discussing a $3.1 billion budget and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is asking about

the french language training. That is a program which we do get some federal

funding for and all civil servants who wish to avail of that, on a voluntary

basis, this is made available to them and whether you are the Premier or Cabinet

Minister or what have you, you are entitled to have that paid for. My staff in

my office use to take advantage of that course and we do not discriminate

against any civil servant who volunteers to take it, as a matter of fact the

member himself if he so wished maybe might, he does not have any future in this

Province, maybe he should take some french lessons, he might want to. You know

if they have to parachute candidates into Labrador from Ottawa to run in a Tory

election, maybe we should give the Leader of the Opposition some french

training, so at least you could parachute someone in from the Avalon Peninsula

to Labrador, as apposed to parachuting them in from Ottawa.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: When the minister has no answers, he tries

to go on the offensive, that is what he does when he has no answers. He was

doing a partial job, a fair job of answering some of the questions, until he

gets to some of the tough ones.

When we asked him if the tax payers of the Province are

paying for the Premiers french lessons, he started talking about everything

else. Are we? Are we paying, out of the deductions, out of your cheque and all

the hard working people of the Province, help pay for the Premiers french

lessons? A simple question, could you tell us?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: I just answered that, I said we have in

government a program whereby employees of government can take french lessons.

MR. SULLIVAN: But is he taking them?

MR. DECKER: Now, that program is partially funded by the

Province and partially funded by the federal government. We live in a bilingual

country, I do not know if the hon. member is aware of that or not, but French

of government and whether -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Yes, members of the House can do it, that is

available to anyone who wants to take advantage of it. I guess it comes out of

the revenue of the Province and it is another expense, but this one is shared by

the feds.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I mean he is great at avoiding answering questions. I did not

ask him if it is available, I know it is available, I say to the minister. I

asked you is the Premier availing of a program that pays for his french lessons?

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is all, is the Premier included in

that list that gets his french lessons paid for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: What is the big deal?

MR. SULLIVAN: Just asked, simple, no big deal. You swear

I am a dentist trying to extract teeth. You should have stood and said yes, his

french lessons are paid for by the tax payers of the Province, that is all I

asked. Now we have that settled, we know that much.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquacultures french lessons

being paid for by the Province?

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, I guess we could

possible?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister, are there any

members of the House getting any remuneration working as assistants, other then

the normal ones, to ministers working in any capacity? Are any allowances or

remunerations provided to any members in that regards?

So, I guess the minister probably wants to tell us now if, I

am sure he would be eager to share all of this, if they are looking at setting