April 2, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 9

The House met at 11:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this month the Burin Peninsula branch of the

Canadian Red Cross Society held its annual gathering to recognize a number of

its local volunteers. To mark certain milestones and contributions, certificates

and pins were presented.

For their ongoing contributions, Mr. Joe Edwards, Branch President, and Ms

Elizabeth Stacey were presented with the Red Cross Service Award.

The Milestone Award and pin was presented to individuals who have dedicated

ten years or more to the organization. Recipients included: Harvey Brown,

Georgina Kilfoy, Bride Mitchell, Gertrude Lambe, Kathleen Fewer, Ellen Chapman,

Laura Harding and Carmelita Ward.

The following volunteers: Kathleen Wells, Mary Drake, Maxine Hooper, Violet

Murphy, Vincent Molloy, and Regina Joyce, were presented with a Certificate of

Merit and a pin for their various efforts to the Red Cross.

Citation Awards went to: Yvonne Crew, Vera Molloy, Marine Workers Local 20,

Aylward's Home Centre, Spencer's Transportation, Cheeseman's

Transportation, and the Town of Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, organizations such as the Red Cross could not exist without the

aid of volunteers. For their time, patience and dedication, I would like to

congratulate all of these recipients on receiving their awards. I would also

like to acknowledge all other volunteers in other Red Cross branches and thank

them for their effort and determination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the organizers in Labrador West for another

successful Great Labrador Loppet, which was held on March 29.

This marks the twenty-eighth year for this event, a cross-country ski race

from Fermont, Quebec to Labrador City, a distance of twenty-seven kilometres.

For the more ardent skiers, the race is from Labrador City to Fermont return for

a distance of fifty-four kilometres.

This year, Mr. Speaker, approximately 200 participants took place in the

event. We had people from outside the area of Labrador West, from other parts of

Labrador, from the Island part of the Province, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,

Quebec, Ontario, and even as far away as Australia. One group of avid skiers

drove twenty hours to take

part in the event.

The best time for the ski race, the fifty-four kilometre event, went to Mr.

Cross Country himself of this Province, Mr. Alf Parsons, and Mike Dyon of

Ontario who finished the fifty-four kilometres in a time of two hours and

fifty-nine minutes, an average speed of eighteen kilometres per hour.

Mr. Speaker, also in attendance were George LeFeuvre, a former long-time

resident who is a world renowned ski track setter, Colin Jardine, developer of

the Menihek Nordic ski trails, Judge Bruce LeGrow, President of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Cross Country, and Jack White, President of the Cross Country

Canadian Masters Association.

Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate all volunteers and participants on another

successful Loppet and in particular the sponsor, Provincial Airlines, and the

co-sponsor, the Iron Ore Company of Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate students from Ascension Collegiate in Bay

Roberts who are taking the lead where they see need.

Ten students and two teachers, sponsors who form the group GAIA, have taken

on the major project of obtaining an environmentally friendly septic system for

the school. Members of the business community have come on board with the

students to assist in this worthwhile project. This is a very good example of

students taking responsibility for their local environment and presenting an

example for us all to follow.

This is a major project they have undertaken, and some estimates of the cost

of doing this kind of project would be in the range of half a million dollars.

Once completed, an environmentally friendly septic system would break down the

waste to a point where no harm would occur to the area's ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of the hon. House join with me in

congratulating this group of teachers and students for taking the lead in this

area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to salute a company in my district

for its leadership in quality assurance and quality control.

Over the lunch hour, I will have the pleasure of attending Labatt Brewery's

accreditation under the HACCP program, the first brewery in Canada to receive

such a distinction.

The HACCP, or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, was originally

developed by NASA and Pillsbury Foods in the 1960s to ensure the safety of food

for the astronauts in the space program. It has since evolved into a world

recognized standard for food safety and quality assurance. The local brewery has

been working towards its HACCP accreditation for eighteen months.

While the accreditation is not required in the brewing industry, Labatt has

voluntarily undertaken this program in all of its breweries across the country,

with our brewery right here in St. John's becoming the first in Canada to

become certified.

I congratulate everybody at Labatt for their excellent work and for raising

the standard for the beverage industry in this Province and across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at a news conference earlier today Premier Grimes and myself,

along with Dr. Doug May of Memorial University and Brendan Doyle, Chair of the

Premier's Council on Social Development, released From the Ground Up ,

the Province's first-ever report that measures well-being in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

From the Ground Up is part of the first-ever Social Audit for this

Province and for the country. It takes the vision of the Strategic Social Plan

and translates it into a series of key social and economic indicators.

We want people to start thinking about the connections, for example, between

education levels, health status, employment and economic prosperity. People have

talked about these connections for a long time. They have told us that social

and economic development go hand in hand. We are now reporting these

relationships in an integrated way.

We committed to reporting back on our social progress when we launched the

Strategic Social Plan in 1998. Mr. Speaker, release of From the Ground Up

is an important part of that commitment. A government must have the courage to

challenge itself to measure the work it is doing. This is one way we remain

accountable to the people we serve and find out if we are moving in the right

direction.

Mr. Speaker, indicators in From the Ground Up are used nationally and

internationally to measure social and economic well-being. This makes it

possible to compare our Province with other places. We need this kind of

information to check our progress over time.

When it comes to innovative social policy development in this country, we

have a number of firsts of which we can be proud. We were the first Province to

implement a Strategic Social Plan, the first Province to create an information

system called Community Accounts that measures well-being, and the first to

carry out a Social Audit. Mr. Speaker, the Social Audit is scheduled to be

completed and released publicly by the end of 2003.

In the spirit of the SSP, development of From the Ground Up was a

consultative process that involved officials from the Strategic Social Plan, the

Premier's Council on Social Development, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Statistics Agency, Memorial University as well as government departments.

From the Ground Up is an example of the SSP in action. Its development

was a partnership effort, and it reflects the SSP's emphasis on evidence-based

decision making.

Within government and across the Province there are many examples of the SSP

at work making differences for people and communities.

The Strategic Health Plan and new Social Assistance legislation reflect SSP

values of early intervention and prevention, collaboration and consultation.

Mr. Speaker, in regions across this Province, SSP initiatives help support

volunteer development and build leadership skills, improve recruitment and

retention strategies for professionals, and profile young people who are

contributing to their communities.

SSP steering communities also bring partners together to support after school

activities that give children access to programs such as air cadets, and bring

community resources together in new and collaborative ways. Some of our schools

are becoming true community centres.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work happening From the Ground Up in

communities across this Province. And I encourage everyone to read From the

Ground Up to learn about the social and economic life of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

From the Ground Up and the background document are available through the

SSP Web site at www.gov.nl.ca/ssp/

or at www.communityaccounts.ca.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, want to commend the

government for finally getting along to change from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: - an illness approach to health care to a wellness

approach.

Certainly, we, on this side, know and have known for a long time the link

between health and social economic status that has been researched in

Newfoundland and Labrador, going back for thirty years. We also know the link

between nutrition counselling and health care, particularly as it applies to

seniors.

Some years ago Dr. Chandra, a well-known international researcher who lives

in Newfoundland and Labrador, wrote articles, and they have been shared among

members, which showed that for every dollar that you invest in nutrition and

nutrition counselling, particularly as applied to seniors, will save you $10 in

health care costs.

We, on this side, commend the government finally moving forward on this

initiative. We believe in social audits. We know, as well, that this government

is finally coming to that realization and we encourage them. It is part of our

approach that we would put forward when we become the government in the next few

months.

We want to, also, encourage our communities to be proactive and to facilitate

a positive program of community leadership on social and economic issues. We

want to commend, as well, the Community Services Council for the great work they

have done in pushing this government to be proactive and to help our communities

be strong and vibrant and to encourage local leadership at the community level.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Strategic Social Plan and proposed Social Audit was announced five

years ago in 1998, I said this was an excuse for the government to put off

dealing with the problems. Now we have information from the Social Audit

confirming what we already knew, Mr. Speaker, that the rate of child poverty in

the Province has, in fact, grown by 6 per cent in the last ten years, that we

have the highest per capita rate of food bank use in the country, and that twice

as many women as men are making less then $15,000 a year.

Now, the whole purpose of a Strategic Social Plan is supposed to improve the

conditions of people in the Province, not just report on how bad they are. It is

useful to have the information. I am glad we have the information but what we

need is results and we need something from this government that is going to

change these things so that these statistics are getting better, not worse, and

that children are not forced to live in poverty, people are not forced to go to

food banks and people have better incomes and a better way of life in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his

capacity, I believe, as Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Air Policy.

Over the last several months anybody watching what was happening with our

so-called - and I want to emphasize the word so-called, Mr. Speaker - national

airline, Air Canada, would understand and know that the situation Air Canada

finds themselves in and have found themselves in, in terms of its debt issues

related to requests from the union for rollbacks of wages, potential of 3,600

employees being laid off and the reduction, if not outright termination, of

flights to smaller parts of Canada. I want to ask the government, in light of

that situation that has been ongoing for the last several weeks, and in view of

the fact today that Air Canada has sought bankruptcy protection from its

creditors, what policies have government adopted, what assurances have

government gotten, and what assurances have they sought to ensure that the level

of air service that we have right now is not only maintained but actually

enhanced and improved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet Committee on Air Policy has been very active, very

diligent, in trying to ensure that this Province, the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, is provided with efficient air access, good air access at

affordable prices and at affordable fares.

Mr. Speaker, we have left no stone unturned. The hon. gentleman knows very

well that this is a federal matter. All we can do is lobby with the various

ministers, lobby with the various airlines, and this we have done. We have had

seventeen meetings with all of the stakeholders over the past year that this

committee was formed. As I indicated just a little while ago, we have submitted

that report to Cabinet . The advice to Cabinet was that we continue on the

activities of the air policy so that we can impress upon Air Canada, and upon

the federal minister, the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador want good air

service at affordable prices right throughout the entire Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We will see what stones the Government House Leader and chairman of the air

policy has really unearthed or overturned. For example, any new business in this

country, under the new economy, requires certain things when they are making

decisions to locate. The most primary and fundamental thing that they are

looking for is timely access, multi-destinations, because, in the new economy,

most of the industries that are being created have a huge service component.

I would like to ask the minister this question: In overturning all of those

stones, what analysis have you done, or any aspect your government have done,

related to how current situations would impact the ability of new businesses to

locate to Newfoundland and Labrador? And, what analysis have you done that if

there are any further reductions or terminations of existing flights in and out

of the Province, what impact that would have? In answering the question, could

the minister also not only indicate what analysis but could he table it for all

of us to see?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously, if the airlines were to stop

flying in certain areas of the Province, if they were to stop flying to St. John's,

or if they were to reduce their flights to St. John's, it would have a

negative impact, but we are living in a free market situation and all this

Province can do is to make its case to the federal government and to make its

case to the airlines. We are quite pleased, for example, with what has happened

with our own provincial airlines, with Provincial Airlines and Air Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: - who have increased their flights to many parts of the

Province. They have increased their flights to the mainland for

interconnections. We believe that there is an opportunity for these two

airlines. They are making a great contribution and are certainly coming in to

fill that void.

Mr. Speaker, we realize as well that there is a necessity for the size of

aircraft that Air Canada has and we can only hope that in the future, due to the

lobbying of not only this Province - because this is for all of Atlantic Canada,

and for many other areas of the country, so we are not the only Province

lobbying Air Canada. This is done at the national level, by the national

Ministers of Transportation, by the national Ministers of Tourism. There is a

concerted effort right throughout the country to ensure that Air Canada is

providing adequate service to all of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the national Transportation Minister, David Collenette, has

basically thrown up his hands and said the federal government really have no

responsibility in this. To say that he is lobbying for national transportation

links is a bit of a joke.

The minister says that we are continuing to look at it. Anybody can sit down,

look at and monitor a situation. What people are wondering is, in your own

document where you say that we will continue to monitor and adopt policies where

appropriate which promote and sustain a healthy competitive airline industry,

what analysis have you done? If you have done any, table it. What policies have

you adopted to try to counteract these important links to sustain the type of

economy that we not only have, but the type of economy that we hope to have?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just trying to inject scare

tactics into the Newfoundland public. He knows very well that this is a federal

national initiative and this Province is not sitting idly by. I do not know if

the hon. member thinks that he has a monopoly on patriotism, that he has a

monopoly on working for this Province. I do not know if he thinks that he is the

only one that has any initiative or any energy.

I tell the hon. member that this government is leaving no stone unturned to

ensure that the national airlines is represented in this Province, that they are

carrying on business in this Province. We are also encouraging our own

provincial airlines to pick up whatever business they can pick up to ensure that

the people of this Province have good interprovincial service and to make sure

that we have connections with the mainland.

Mr. Speaker, we will not relent. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure

that the people of this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are

provided with good air service and affordable air service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Government House Leader's political rhetoric

but there are people in the Province today, not only airline employees but

existing businesses - even you, in your own report, say that one of the big

concerns that has come out as a result of this committee, is: air access to

international connections to support business development was a recurring theme

on trade and investment missions.

In other words, people that you have been associated with on trade and

investment missions, Mr. Speaker, have indicated to you that one of the barriers

to economic development, in this Province is air access.

I say to the minister, in your own report you say you are going to continue

to monitor and adopt policies. Right now, what people are looking for is not a

fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants answer; it is not an autopilot sort of approach.

They are looking for answers from you and your government as to what policies

you are going to adopt to ensure that air access is not only maintained but

improved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member that I have not

been using rhetoric. I have been using sincerity, telling the people of this

Province what we have been doing, telling the people that we have met with all

of the stakeholders, that we have met with the airport authorities and we have

met with the airlines. We haven't been sitting idly by. We have been working

diligently, Mr. Speaker, and it is shown by the increase in activity by our own

provincial airlines, by other airlines, national airlines, that have been coming

to the Province, and more will come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The hon. member is raising unfounded fears at this moment. I

want to assure the people of Newfoundland, the business community, that this

government will leave no stone unturned in terms of ensuring that we are

provided with adequate air access and at affordable fares, as I said before.

That is the ambition, that is the goal, of this government and we are going to

continue to work at doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is pretty sad when anytime you ask a question on a legitimate public

policy issue, which government itself saw as so important that they put together

a Cabinet Committee on it, when we ask questions about their own report and what

they are doing and they can't provide the answers, we are fearmongering.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: Just a couple of moments ago in

responding to one of my questions, he said: The member needs to understand this

is a free market. I understand that. Let me ask the minister this: One of your

recommendations or one of the policies that you either have adopted or are

planning to adopt in lobbying the federal government, in lobbying the airline

industry, is one of those in terms of the concept of open skies? Is that a

possible solution that you and your government are looking at?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is lobbying with the federal

government and with the airlines to provide the best possible service that they

can provide to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, whatever

policy that takes to ensure that the needs of the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador are addressed, we are willing to discuss these needs.

We have advanced the request, we have advanced the notion, that we want this

Province to be provided with adequate air service at affordable prices. That is

our position, that is what we have advocated to the federal government and that

is what we will continue to advocate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I think history has shown, certainly in the last several years, that if we

are dependent upon the federal government and Air Canada to do what is right for

this Province, then we are in sad, sad shape today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, I asked you the question, you did not answer it.

I asked you a question about open skies, not opening your eyes, but, in fact, by

the look of it today, that is exactly what you and your government need to do.

Are you looking at seriously a policy dealing with opening skies, which is

about opening access to airlines so that our economic links to our trading

partners both in the U.S. and the Eastern Seaboard and other parts of Canada are

improved, and, as a result of that, maybe more flights in and out of the

Province would actually occur? Is government seriously looking at that policy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked it was the federal

government which had the authority to dictate aviation commercial airline policy

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is the people - oh, I think the hon. gentleman

indicated that if we had to wait for the federal government to do anything, we

would be waiting a long time. Well, I do not know who else we should negotiate

with, unless we should negotiate with Great Britain and Germany. We do not have

that kind of authority. We have to negotiate with the federal government and we

will continue our ongoing diligent relentless efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

In last week's Budget government committed to retaining some 218 teaching

positions that would otherwise be redundant in 2003-2004. Yet, government fails

to mention that the number of teachers in the Province will be reduced by some

160 teaching positions. Government continues to speak about our pupil-teacher

ratio yet it does not appear that government has a plan to reduce class size. I

say to the minister, the two are very different. I would like to ask the

minister: How will class size be reduced in our Province, and by how much as a

result of last week's announcements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question, even though I find it somewhat

hypocritical coming from the same individual who was quoted in The Western

Star a couple weeks ago as saying that if they were to form the government

they would trim the fat that exists in bureaucratic bodies. It says it right

there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: To get on to his question, Mr. Speaker, it depends on how you

look at it. The Tories always look at something as the glass as being two-thirds

empty rather than two-thirds full. The actual fact of the matter is, we left 218

teaching positions in our school around the Province this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Two hundred and eighteen more than the Sparkes-Williams report

would have had us take out. So we are reinvesting the $12 million for those 218

teachers back into the educational system. That is how we intend to deal with

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard the concerns, even in the last few days, from board

representatives, from school administrators, from classroom teachers, that

despite the fact in last week's Budget we know that there are primary and

elementary classes in our Province with thirty or more students in the

classroom, and for some high school students well between thirty and forty, and

for some high school students in excess of forty. There is overwhelming

evidence, Mr. Speaker, that these number are far too high. Teachers are

prevented from teaching well and students simply cannot learn in that situation.

I ask this minister a serious question in response to last week's Budget:

Will the minister set, as a priority, as the Minister of the Department of

Education for his department, a policy of maximizing class size? In other words,

having a maximum number of students for classes at different levels, perhaps

beginning with primary grades, to take effect in 2003 and 2004?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the member opposite for his question. Again, I find it

hypocritical when they tout their star candidate, Ms Marshall, the one who said,

like he said in Corner Brook: There is lots of fat in the bureaucracy to trim.

Now today he is talking about putting some of that fat back in there. I think

that is what he is saying.

Let's get on to the question. He said: If we are taking teachers out, how

are we going to reduce the size of classrooms in the Province? Well, Mr.

Speaker, the population of our schools, the number of students in this Province,

has decreased by 6,000 in the last two years. By the time that our students go

back to school in September of this year that number will have decreased by

9,000. Is the hon. member saying that we should not take one teacher out? If you

are talking about classes of forty, let me tell you again, we have the lowest

pupil-teacher ratio in the country. Even having taken out those 160, we still

have the lowest student-teacher ratio in the country. We are dedicated to the

students of our Province. The Budget that was passed here last week is prime

evidence of that commitment that we make to the students of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of hypocrisy. This is an issue of

reality. The district that I represent, for example, in the school district

Avalon East, that particular board will lose some thirty-six teaching positions.

How do this minister rationalize the fact that he can continue to boast about

the lowest pupil-teacher ratio in the country when in fact he, as the minister,

knows full well that there are classrooms with thirty to forty and well in

excess of forty students in this Province? How does he rationalize that fact?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have to say, the hon. member on the other side always looks at the

negative side. Yes, I know there are classes out there with more than fifteen

students in them. I also know that there are a number of classrooms out there

that have fewer than fifteen students.

Let me give you an example. He talks about classes of thirty and thirty-plus

in the Province. I have a school in my district, in Change Islands, with less

than fifty students. Less than fifty student. Now, keep that in mind, and he is

talking about thirty and forty to a class. We have less than fifty students in

that school; yet, we have eight teachers in that school. I ask you what the

student-teacher ratio is in that school.

When you are talking about the number of students that are in each of the

individual classes in the Province, we allocate the number of teachers to the

board, not to the schools. It is up to the boards and the principals of the

schools how many students they permit to go into a particular class. Like you

said, if there is a class with thirty to thirty-five students in it, you will

also find somewhere in that school a class with far fewer than ten.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

recently stated at a Public Accounts Committee hearing regarding the Ahelaide

or the Hull 100 - or the rustbucket as I refer to it, and I quote,

"We are stuck with it. The final bills are not in yet. We are just going to

have to hope and pray and keep our fingers crossed that everything works

out."

Mr. Speaker, government first stated the complete cost to the taxpayer to put

this vessel in the system would be $3 million. It then went to $5 million, $7

million, and now upwards of $10 million. Does the minister agree with his deputy

minister's statement? In light of the deputy minister's statement, will the

minister now admit the costs for this vessel are out of control? And, can he

give us a definite time frame when this vessel will be put in the system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the first objective that we face in the

department is to ensure that we do provide adequate service throughout the

Province. I am confident, as my predecessor was, and the predecessor before him,

that by the time the Ahelaid is put in the water to service the people in

the area where it is going, this will be an adequate vessel.

I would also say that a similar vessel would have cost us somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $16 million to $18 million. At $7 million, even with the

problems that we are having, it will in the end prove to be a good deal for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Hull 100 is still having major repairs and upgrading

done, some four years after its purchase. Sources tell me, as large pieces of

steel plates are removed, replacement pieces cannot be welded to what is left

because of the rust and the condition of the vessel. Will the minister tell the

House how much more money government is prepared to spend above the millions

already spent and possibly wasted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, as with any vessel in the fleet in the Province,

I am delighted, first and foremost, that money is being spent here in

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: It is being spent to ensure the viability of a shipyard in the

Province, guaranteeing work for people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to you again that when that vessel goes into service, in a matter of

another two or three months, the people that vessel will service will be

delighted with it at half the cost of what a brand new vessel would have been.

Mr. Speaker, the concept is to make sure that the people we are trying to

serve are given the best service we possibly can. I tell you, the Hull 100 ,

the Ahelaid , however you wish to refer to the vessel, it will do the job

that we are asking for. It will meet the needs, and it will still be a bargain

price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I asked, when will

that vessel be put in the system, and he did not go near it.

The purchase of the Hull 100 and subsequent actions of this government

with respect to this vessel are both a farce and a disgrace. Transport Canada is

concerned that Newfoundland is causing Canada to become a dumping ground for

substandard ferries not built in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, why did government announce a vague option to replace one ferry

in this year's Budget - it is an election year, we know - and not a full

vessel replacement policy which would see the Newfoundland shipyards and

Newfoundland workers build the replacement vessels here in Newfoundland and

Labrador? Hasn't the door been left open for the purchase of similar vessels

from foreign countries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, as we move forward we will be moving with a

vessel replacement program that consists of mainly and mostly - my choice - new

vessels. But perhaps -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where will they be built? Here?

MR. WALSH: The vessels will be built where we can find the best quality,

the best price, and preferably here in Newfoundland. I will say that when we did

make our announcement in the Budget Speech, even on that one, our colleagues on

the opposite side tried to steal the announcement two days ahead of us. I would

love to see what your plan is for a vessel replacement program for this

Province. I would love to see exactly what it is that you hope to do. But, I

tell you what I will do, we will refine the statement a little more so that you

can take it and hopefully build on it. Let me assure you, the vessel replacement

program that we will put in place for this Province will be one that is far in

extent and far in excess of what you can even imagine doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister responsible for Labrador & Aboriginal

Affairs. It concerns the annual caribou hunt in Labrador, particularly in the

Schefferville area.

The congestion problem up there, I say to the minister, continues to get

worse each year. The issue of safety and harmony is seriously compromised with

too many hunters using too small an area creating an unsafe situation. Fights

have almost broken out between outfitters and many threats have been issued back

and forth. Things have deteriorated, I say to the minister, to the point where

this is a topic of discussion at outfitter conferences in the United States

where a lot of the business comes from. Mr. Speaker, this industry is very

important to the economic well-being of Labrador West and the minister is also

aware that these outfitting companies in the States are advising people to avoid

this area.

My question to the Minister responsible for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs

is: What action is he, along with his counterparts, going to take to enforce

regulations, create a level playing field for all outfitters and rectify the

intolerable situation that presently exists?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. ANDERSEN: The Member for Labrador West raised a question, it is one

that is of a very serious nature.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two weeks I have had discussions with outfitters

in Labrador West that operate in Schefferville and in other parts of Labrador. I

have had discussions with the Minister of Tourism. I have had discussions with

the minister responsible for wildlife protection. During the Easter break I will

travel to Labrador West to meet with the outfitters there. I will have more

discussions with people in the Upper Lake Melville area regarding the debris

along the road and, Mr. Speaker, I will come back and consult with the Minister

of Tourism, the minister of wildlife. We will even ask the Member for Labrador

West for his input. Mr. Speaker, we will bring in guidelines and, if need be, we

will bring in regulations to correct a very serious problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question again, supplement to the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal

Affairs, is in line with tourism and caribou in Labrador. The minister is quite

aware, and all people of the Province are quite aware, of the terrible mess that

is on the Trans-Labrador Highway with caribou remains. Some of these remains are

quite huge. They have caused traffic accidents to date. They have inflected

damages on vehicles travelling that highway.

My question to the minister: What is he going to do to prevent this

situation, clean up for this year, and to prevent the situation from occurring

in the future? I want to make clear to the minister that my information on the

mess on that highway is that it is not due to local hunters in the area. It is

hunters outside the Province who are mainly responsible, is the information I

have. I want to ask the minister: What is he going to do about this situation

and what will he do in the future to make sure that this situation does not

reoccur?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem that the Member for Labrador West speaks about is of a serious

nature. I have seen it firsthand. I have been provided with pictures of the

remains along the side of the road. Before we start pointing fingers as to

whether it is people outside the Province or inside the Province, I am going to

meet with wildlife officials up there, people in the Department of Tourism, and

consult with the Minister of Tourism and the minister for wildlife as to what we

might do. There is a very serious problem. I think it is the last thing that we,

in Labrador, who brag of a great industry we have in tourism - the last thing

that we want to see is for people who come into Labrador to see this mess along

the side of the road. In a short period of time we will do everything we can to

try and clean up the problem that lies by the side of the road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this hon. House today to table the

2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to table for hon. members pursuant to the

2002 Speech from the Throne two reports on the Accountability of Public Bodies.

One report speaks only to Consumer Protection Fund for Prepaid Funeral Services.

The other provides information on the sixteen boards and agencies that are

required to report to my department. This report highlights the annual

activities of the following boards and agencies which are classified as Level

III public bodies under the accountability framework: Appendix A, Board of

Commissioners of Public Utilities; Appendix B, Credit Union Deposit Guarantee

Corporation; Appendix C, Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board; Appendix D,

Petroleum Products Pricing Commission; Appendix E, Public Accounts Licensing

Board; Appendix F, Real Estate Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time this department has tabled such reports,

reaffirming the commitment of this government to being open and accountable to

the public. The past two years have seen a level of accountability second to

none in this country and in this Province.

Further to this, Mr. Speaker, the other ten agencies, boards and commissions,

which report to my department, meet on an ad hoc basis and have not previously

been required to write annual reports under their legislation. These agencies,

boards and commissions have been requested to submit reports for 2002, 2003, and

onwards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In keeping with the open and accountable mandate that this government governs

by, I am pleased today to table the Report of 2001-2002 of the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

This documents is an account of the department's business for the fiscal

year.

The department is responsible for representing the Province's interest and

one of our most precious resources. Our mandate is to promote and support

professional and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture industries for the

benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. This report outlines the goals, the

progress and the challenges of the department, and reports on our delivery of

programs and services.

In 2001, the Newfoundland and Labrador seafood industry produced products

valued at over $900 million. This decline from approximately $1 billion in 2000

was due primarily to reduced shrimp landings and prices. I am pleased to say

that the industry rebounded to more than $1 billion in production value in 2002.

Mr. Speaker, overall, 2001 was a very good year for our fishery

notwithstanding the challenges that faced us in the cooked and peeled shrimp

sector. However, we are concerned about the downward trends that have been

reported in both Northern and Gulf cod fisheries in 2J+3Ps crab stocks, and that

will no doubt create our biggest challenge within the coming year.

On March 17, the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on 2J3KL and

3Pn4RS Cod Fisheries presented its report to Robert Thibault, the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, indicating that the closure of those cod fisheries

indefinitely will be devastating news for our Province.

We, as Newfoundlander and Labradorians, are apprehensive about pending quota

announcements and we will continue to push the federal government to implement

the recommendations that we have presented. We also continue to monitor the

consultations and recommendations presented by fishers and industry stakeholders

with regard to future crab fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the department will continue to support the fishing and

aquaculture industries thought its programs and services. We will continue to

work with industry stakeholders on major initiatives designed to increase

prosperity in the fishing and aquaculture industries.

Building on the progress of our strategic approach, the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture will continue to response to the challenges and the

opportunities that lie ahead for us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the

Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. This is a new department that was

brought in by the Premier just a few years ago. The report covers a wide variety

of issues that we cover in Labrador with the Lower Churchill, Voisey's Bay,

dealing with all land claims with the Aboriginal issues, and certainly acting as

a liaison between all other departments as they work with the people in

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador are very proud that this department was

created, and it is a pleasure for me to stand here today and table our first

ever Annual Report for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table the 2001-2002 report for the Department of Human

Resources and Employment. Included in this document, Mr. Speaker, is the report

for the Social Services Appeal Board.

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House have been involved in issues related

to income support as part of their constituency caseload. I know that before I

became minister of this department I was always impressed with the compassion

and professionalism of the management and the front line staff of HRE. My

experience since becoming minister has only reinforced that view. They are to be

commended for the good work they do every day in providing assistance to the

people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we know that as the economic climate improves fewer people rely

on income support. When work is available people want to work. That is why this

government has placed such emphasis on improving and diversifying our economy.

This government and this department is committed to a vision of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians as healthy, educated and self-reliant people living in

supportive communities.

Just as important, our people need to have access to social programs which

encourage them to reach their full potential. This report provides a concise

summary of those programs, activities and accomplishments for this department.

At the same time, it is also a testament to the staff of this department who,

each and every day, renew their commitment to the vision that social and

economic development go hand in hand. I believe that this annual report is

evidence of that commitment. I hope that all members find it helpful and

informative.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

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

Pursuant to

section 28(4)(

e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling two Orders-in-Council for the creation of two new activities of

expenditure for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, one of which relates to native people's

education and another with respect to municipalities, crown corporations and the

capital associated with that.

Further, Mr. Speaker, today, pursuant to

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act, I am tabling five Orders-in-Council relating to the funding

pre-commitments for the fiscal year 2003-2004.

Just briefly, Mr. Speaker: One of these is in relation to the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation to pre-commit funding of $1.8 million against

the department's appropriations, so that we are able to facilitate the

awarding of tenders for the Coastal Labrador marine shore-based infrastructure

projects located at Cartwright, Postville and Black Tickle. This is very

important, obviously, because we need it to be completed in time for the

Labrador coastal marine services operating season.

The second is also related to the Minister of Works, Service and

Transportation, to pre-commit funding of $1.5 million to facilitate the awarding

of tenders for the refit of the Sir Robert Bond and the Northern

Ranger , again making it necessary to have these vessels ready for the

Coastal Labrador marine service operating season commencing May 1, 2003.

Also, for the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, pre-committing

not to excess $1.2 million against appropriations so that we are able to procure

the rabies vaccination, so that we are able to put out the appropriate vaccine

baits so that we can begin the eradication program.

Further, for the Minister of Education, a pre-authorization of $4.519

million, Mr. Speaker, for the appropriation of the purchase of new textbooks. We

need to do this in advance so that we are obviously able to have the prompt

delivery of these textbooks for primary, elementary and secondary schools prior

to September, 2003.

Finally, for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, authority to

pre-commit $125,300 against appropriations of the overhaul of the R-2800 water

bomber so that we are able to have the water bomber have the engine refitted and

ready for the beginning of the fire season in May.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition today, Mr. Speaker, addressed: To the hon. House of

Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition

of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in

Canada that does not have a downtown library in its capital city; and

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst rates of

illiteracy in the country; and

WHEREAS the citizens and visitors of downtown St. John's require a downtown

library for access to literature, the Internet, and a place to develop their

literacy skills; and

WHEREAS the children of downtown St. John's need access to books; and

WHEREAS the Province and the city used to provide the citizens and visitors

of St. John's with a downtown library;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to return the downtown

library to the citizens and visitors of St. John's and to take whatever action

is necessary to ensure that the downtown library has adequate hours of

operation, adequate staffing and adequate books.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to demand today that the Province put a library

in the downtown area. What I am going to ask the government to do is to carry

out a study to determine the viability of a downtown library. I am going to ask

the government to determine, if there was a library in the downtown area,

families that do not have adequate transportation, who cannot afford

transportation to libraries in other areas of the city, would their literacy

rates improve? In the long run, my belief is that their literacy rates would

improve to the point that it would actually be more cost-efficient to put a

library in the downtown area than to not have one there.

Government are promoting the Read and Succeed campaign, their literacy

campaign, but yet there are families in the downtown area that neither have the

resources to get to a library nor the ability to access a library. If there were

a library in the downtown area - I am asking government to put forward a study

to determine the long-term viability. My belief is, if there were a library in

the downtown area, in the long run it would save government a tremendous amount

of money.

I am not going to demand that they put a library in the downtown area. I am

asking that they carry out a study to determine the long-term viability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is Wednesday. I will hear the petition from the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, but we only have about a minute left.

MR. HARRIS: We are at 12 o'clock now. Perhaps -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to present his petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just before the House got underway, the

Member for St. John's South brought part of the petition that he had and gave

it to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. My question is: Is this the

appropriate way to present petitions in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has asked hon. members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Do members want to continue?

The Chair has asked members, in presenting petitions to this House, to make

sure that the petitions are in order. To do that, we ask them to consult with

the Table officers here to ensure that the petitions are in order. Otherwise, if

someone raises a point of order on a petition, and it has not been presented to

the Table, then the Chair does not have much choice but to declare it out of

order. However, I have not heard what the hon. member's petition is, so I

would ask the hon. member to present his petition.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is quite the person to talk about petitions being presented in

this House. This petition is in the exact same form as the previous petition

presented by the Member for St. John's South, which both he and I were asked

to present on behalf of the downtown library committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: The petitions were specifically forwarded to the Member for

St. John's South to be distributed to him and me, for presentation to the

House, by the St. John's downtown library committee. I am very proud to

present that petition because it is something that I believe in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this petition underscores a campaign that has

been going on for the past six months to a year to try and restore to this

Province, the only capital city in the country without a downtown library, to

have a downtown library for our citizens and for our city, for our tourism, for

our visitors, for our sense of ourselves as a Province with a capital city.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to great considerable public lengths and expense to

build an edifice called The Rooms, which I fully support, because it is part of

us representing our culture, representing our archival history, representing our

great art work to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ourselves, and

also to the world.

Mr. Speaker, a downtown public library is a very important part of the

cultural and intellectual life of an important city, of a capital city, like St.

John's is. Important not only to the citizens of St. John's but also to the

whole Province. I know, Mr. Speaker, from my own experience in living in other

cities, whether they be the City of London in England, or Edmonton in Alberta,

or the City of Toronto, that the public library is a centre for all sorts of

activity, not just a lending library but in fact a cultural and community

centre. In Edmonton, for example, Mr. Speaker, in the downtown library in

Edmonton on a Sunday afternoon, the place is blocked with people who are there

engaging in reading magazines, discussion groups, playing chess, listening to

music, engaged in activities, students doing studies, people doing independent

research. The place is a beehive of activity, Mr. Speaker, centred around

activities that are important to the cultural life of the community.

A downtown public library in this Province, Mr. Speaker, would be a place

where authors could do their readings. We have a plethora of authors in this

Province who are producing works each year that are winning awards, that are

getting readership across this country, promoting our culture, our heritage, our

talent to people, and a public library is a place where these efforts are given

encouragement and exposure and an opportunity for people - young people and old

people and everyone - to participate in that sort of thing.

We have a library, Mr. Speaker, at the Arts and Culture Centre which is, I

believe, under review for continuing in that particular location. We have a lot

of activity downtown, and to have a downtown public library as part of our

cultural life is very important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and I want to encourage government to look seriously at

this proposal.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the hon. the Member for Gander.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in standing to today's motion, which is on the

Gander Weather Office, the decision by the federal government to downsize it

greatly, I would like to start the debate by not reading all of the motion but

making sure for the record that we read into it the:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls for a reversal of

the decision by the federal government to cut weather forecasting services at

Gander.

Today, Mr. Speaker, my remarks will come mostly from the proposal that this

government will be presenting, after today's debate, to the federal

government, a plan for them to reverse this decision and to still meet their

mandate but to keep public and marine forecasting in this Province. The comments

also that I will make today, is information that we have been gathering from

people all over the Province, in particular from Memorial University of

Newfoundland which has a long and proud record of working in the areas of

climatology, and also from meteorologists themselves who are both actually

working active meteorologists and those who are retired.

Most of us would know that the Newfoundland Weather Centre in Gander dates

back to the pre-war years. In fact, it started around 1938 in Botwood and

shortly after that moved to the airport in Gander.

What we are talking about today is the decision on Thursday, March 13, when

the Environment Minister, David Anderson, announced changes to the

meteorological service of Canada whereby they were consolidating fourteen

weather offices into five centres of excellence and three national services

offices. As a result of these changes, Gander over the next two years is to lose

its forecasting function and become a national service office with a staff of

ten.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly about what is being offered

to Gander. The national marine service centre proposed for Gander, after removal

of all the forecast production capabilities, is, we feel, the final process in

the exit program, something that the Department of Environment has been trying

to do for many a long year. They have made four previous attempts.

The positions proposed for this new national marine service centre do not

currently exist in any form elsewhere and many meteorologists feel that this is

being totally fabricated. They say these positions are liaison type and that

they will only work, it is felt, if they are co-located with centres of forecast

production. They also tell me they are to do - that if they were located with

informatics, with research climatology and human resources, and none of these

are presently in Newfoundland and Labrador. They feel that these are fluff jobs

and that these jobs will only stay as long as there are no financial

difficulties. The next time there is any downsizing contemplated in the

meteorological service these will be the first to disappear. They also feel the

same thing about the two centres that are going in Rimouski and Kelowna.

Then, one of the issues the Premier and I talked to Minister Anderson about

was the Winnipeg solution. Most of us would know that besides the five centres

of excellence that are being proposed for across the country, that Winnipeg was

made a branch office of the Edmonton office. Interestingly, Environment Canada

has made this one exception to their master plan of co-locating weather forecast

productions with their regional offices; and, of course, that exception, we all

know, is Winnipeg. Winnipeg will continue to forecast for Manitoba, which is

mostly a public forecast program with some seasonal marine forecasting for the

larger inland lakes of that Province.

Now let's look at some of the basic statistics here. This really shows you

the meaning behind all of this and the unfairness that is happening to

Newfoundland. Winnipeg will be forecasting for a land and lake area of some

650,000 square kilometres, where the Newfoundland Weather Centre in Gander

currently forecasts for a land and ocean area of 1,711,000 square kilometres

which is two point six times the proposed Winnipeg area. Of course, Gander

operates a full-time marine forecast program in addition to its public program.

It is rather difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand why Gander must cease

forecast production and Winnipeg carries on.

Now, Minister Anderson talked to us that, oh, while we recognize that

Newfoundland has adverse weather and a vast geography like the Manitoba area, he

said most of this has to do with the research capability at Winnipeg with the

University of Manitoba. But, you know, as for the research facilities in both

Winnipeg and the Halifax argument - which the minister gave us - traditionally,

I am told, there has been very little contact between operational units and

research units. One reason being, our PHDs and operational people are in the PHD

area because most operational people are mostly Bachelors of Science and they

operate on very different wavelengths. This will not change, so why are we

promoting this falsehood? An every day comparison might be: Consider your

operational weather forecaster like the general practitioner in the medical

field and the university connection being the School of Medicine at Memorial or

any teaching research unit.

Do you think that your family doctor in Gander or Corner Brook is any less

competent or less diligent because they are not in St. John's where the School

of Medicine is? Probably not. He or she may actually be far more devoted to

general practice because of their commitment. As for updating ones skills, there

are ample opportunities, such as: correspondence, Internet, video

teleconferencing, seminars. We all know that Newfoundland leads the country and,

in fact, the world in distance education. The operational forecaster is in much

the same position as a doctor would be. Most of them are devoted to their

practitioner work and like only casual project work which is easily performed

outside a university setting.

So, I would challenge Minister Anderson to provide statistical proof that the

weather forecast issued by Halifax is better or improved because of the close

proximity to university and research institutions.

Much improvement in forecasting can be traced to better numeral weather

prediction forecast for the local forecaster to work with. Improvements in this

area have been considerable through the last three decades, but not surprisingly

has slowed down as it has reached its maturity it is felt by many forecasters.

Now I would like to talk about the technology argument that the federal

government is putting forward. I think many of us are getting tired of

organizations continually using technology as an explanation for their decisions

and there is no doubt that this is being done with this decision.

Minister Anderson in his conversation just last week with Bill Rowe on the

Open Line Show - I think it was March 20 - alluded to it several times. However,

we feel that Mr. Anderson was very poorly briefed on this matter. Most of the

technology he spoke of was far from recent and definitely not technology of the

future. A couple of examples that we should note are: equipment on aircraft, he

talked about, to pick up weather. This has been around for decades. Doppler

radar has been used by TV stations in the U.S.A. for over ten years, and

satellite weather coverage has been available extensively since the early 1970s.

In fact, many of these same technology issues were used to justify the strategic

plan for Environment Canada that took place in the early 1990s that now they are

dismantling again.

Technology, as Environment Canada needs, has not advanced as rapidly in the

last five years as it had to the point as no one can see from the economic and

geopolitical situation in the world. So, in reality, it is difficult to see what

Environment Canada is reacting to, and that is scary, Mr. Speaker.

The same technology that Environment Canada forecasts also allows the reverse

to be possible, that is Gander can do all of Halifax's forecasting. As a

matter of fact, that is what this government proposed many months ago and, in

fact, many years ago to Environment Canada.

We all know that at the moment there are no Atlantic regional offices for the

federal government in our Province. There are seventeen in Nova Scotia. There

are eleven in New Brunswick and there is one national office in little P.E.I.

This was the first time that we saw a really good, strong argument that this

should be the Atlantic forecast centre for all of Atlantic Canada. It is very

obvious that we were not listened to.

We know that forecasting, where the forecaster is the closest to where the

action is, is the most valuable type of forecast. As we know, in this Province

we have many local events of severe weather that are often identified by local

studies, such as the Wreck House winds in southwestern Newfoundland that all of

us would know about. This is just one example of how local knowledge is

important and illustrates that forecasting from Halifax will not give

Newfoundland and Labrador a more accurate forecast.

I think we should also comment on some other things that Mr. Anderson said.

Mr. Anderson claimed that the reorganization and restructuring of the

meteorological service will bring greater accuracy to local forecasts, but he

has not provided any evidence of this. If he has not, why should we proceed

until we know that it will, in fact, give greater accuracy? He also makes the

very naive assumption that the important local knowledge possessed by the

forecasters in Gander will be transferred to Halifax by moving the Gander staff

to Halifax. To do this, he is assuming that everyone from the Gander office

wants to move to Halifax and stay there ad infinitum. Forecasters who have

previously worked in Gander now work all across this country. They are not all

concentrated in Halifax, and this group of forecasters are not likely to want to

do the same. I think this is gullibility at its finest.

Mr. Anderson belittles weather forecasters by saying they check the

precipitation, wind, barometer and then they come up with a forecast. Mr.

Speaker, it was never that way. Weather forecasting has always been at the

forefront of science and technology. Mr. Anderson has confused observing and

forecasting. Mr. Anderson, obviously, does not want to talk about the Winnipeg

situation when asked about other places in Canada where the department related

to complaints. Because we know that this service is so invaluable to our

fishermen and women who spend, many times, several days or if not weeks at sea

and they require weather information beyond the customary two days. During the

fishing season in this Province, normally which would be early spring until late

fall, it is not uncommon for forecasters at the Newfoundland Weather Centre in

Gander to handle fifty to seventy calls a day. In Halifax they handle about one

to two calls a day and that is the standard across the country.

During the winter season most calls concern storms and their affect on school

closings and travel plans. In order to give proper service to these calls

forecasters must have good local knowledge of local meteorology and geography.

Environment Canada has not consulted with any stakeholders about this. In

particular, this Province and the public here. We know that there have been four

times they have tried to make this decision in the past. I want to make one

quote that in 1997, the last time the decision was reversed, this is what was

said by Bill Appleby, Regional Director for Atlantic Canada. He said, "Due

to concerns that have been expressed in Newfoundland, Environment Canada has

changed its plans to produce all the marine forecasts for Atlantic Canada from

the Maritimes Weather Centre in Halifax. Instead, marine meteorologist

specialist positions will be re-established at the Newfoundland Weather Centre

in Gander and these positions will continue to produce the marine forecast for

Newfoundland Waters."

That was recognized in 1997 as a mistake, and we must insist that it is

recognized again. This just does not make any sense at all. We have pages of

facts and figures which show that this should not be so, and we will continue to

make sure that it is not so.

Ice forecasting is practically all done from this Province but guess where

the centre of excellence is? It is in Ottawa. Nobody is talking about moving it

to Newfoundland and Labrador where most of the ice exists.

The Mayor of St. John's and others have pointed out that these actions

today are contrary to the spirit and the intent of the Atlantic Accord, which

requires that it shall establish in the Province, where possible, regional

offices with appropriate levels of decision making for all departments directly

involved in activities relating to the offshore area. The met office in Gander

certainly relates to that.

The federal government's announcement has met with very strong opposition

in this Province. A committee in Gander, headed by the Mayor, Claude Elliott,

has been working long and hard on this. There is a petition going around the

Province. All of us see on a daily basis letters of concern to the editor and

much discussion on the Open Line show.

In

summary, the proposal that would see public and marine forecasting

maintained at Gander would require no new equipment in Gander. It would be

pretty well cost-effective from the perspective that, whether it is in Halifax

or Gander, it would require the same amount. We propose to put research links in

with Memorial, that they are very interested in. They have already presented a

letter of support and a very detailed plan on meteorological research that they

would like to do with Gander. Also, this could be extended to Dalhousie

University.

To move the forecast production to Halifax certainly will not create savings

but it will cause a huge problem for weather forecasting for this Province. We

need the local knowledge and, not only that, we need these very important jobs

in our Province. The experience of moving the local forecasters is a definite

downgrade for Newfoundland and Labrador.

This proposal that we will present to the government will allow the federal

government to meet its mandate to provide excellence in forecasting, maintain a

forecasting function and presence in this Province, and take advantage of the

climate related research taking place at our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to implore the federal government to again

change this position and to make sure that the weather forecasting service for

this Province in the marine and public area stays right here in Newfoundland and

Labrador where it belongs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak on this motion before the House today concerning

the changes in the Gander Weather Office. In fact, the gutting of the weather

forecasting services.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member opposite on her

speech. It was a very good speech, very well researched, a lot of detail, a lot

of information, and brought out all the relevant facts in terms of why the

Gander Weather Office should stay there. We know them well. We know the

importance of weather forecasting being done in this Province because of the

nature of our weather systems, the requirements of local information, and the

fact that the weather can change very quickly from one hour to the next has

very, very important and, in fact, life-determining consequences for so many of

our people who depend on accurate and timely weather forecasts to go about their

business, whether it be driving on our roads or more dangerously engaged in the

fishing industry or marine activities all around our Province. It is very

important that we do have a proper on-the-ground, on-site weather forecasting

facility in this Province. The Gander Weather Office has preformed a valued

service of that nature for many, many years and, of course, recognized by the

weather forecasting experts as being necessary and vital that it be done here

locally.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very good speech. We certainly support the motion, and

we will vote in favour of it, as I am sure all hon. members here will.

Unfortunately, all of this logic, all of this good sense, and all of this valid

in many other areas - centralize a service, ignore the needs of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, treat the four Atlantic Provinces as if they were one

entity that is centered in Halifax.

Mr. Speaker, what really has happened is that this government has let them

get away with it. This is after the fact. After the fact, we have a terrific

presentation. I compliment the member who was the minister responsible for

representing Gander in Cabinet. I compliment her on her information, but why is

it we have to have this resolution at all?

forecasting centres to five. Included on that list was Manitoba, and Winnipeg

was going to be removed, but they did not let it happen. They managed to stop

it. The Government of Manitoba, and the people of Winnipeg and their

representatives in the House of Commons stopped the changes from taking place in

the City of Winnipeg. They are not a Liberal government. The Government of

Manitoba is an NDP government. An NDP government in Manitoba was sitting there.

They challenged the decision in a timely fashion and got the decision changed

for the City of Winnipeg. They now have forecasting in Winnipeg. The

representatives in the Parliament of Canada for Winnipeg and Manitoba fought

against that decision and made sure that it was changed.

What I want to know, and what we should really hear from the other side, is

why it is that we got some assurances last fall that this is going to be fixed,

that this problem is resolved, that this is not even a problem, that there are

some plans afoot but we have managed to forestall them, and we hear from the

federal minister and federal representative in Cabinet and others who are

talking about it, that this problem is in hand. This government treats it as if

it is some sort of surprise sprung at them at the last minute.

Mr. Speaker, that is the explanation that we need to hear from the other

side; how this was allowed to happen, how this government, with their own

government in Ottawa, could see this happen without there being a major, major

public fuss long before it was implemented, long before it was announced. Mr.

Speaker, did they not see this coming or were they led down the garden path by

someone in Ottawa, to suggest that this wasn't going to be a problem, or were

they asleep at the switch? That is the question that has to be answered, Mr.

Speaker.

We can all get up here in this House and make speeches about the problems

that Newfoundland has in terms of dealing with Ottawa, decisions that are made,

et cetera, et cetera. We can all do that, but that is the cry of the impotent,

Mr. Speaker. Those are the people who can't solve the problems, who can't

address the issues. This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that has been in office

for fourteen years. This is a government whose party holds the seat of power in

Ottawa. This is a government that should have some influence on the decisions

that are being made in Ottawa.

The very logical, the very competent, I would go so far as to say, the very

competent, logical, well-researched, sensible arguments that were just put forth

by the Member for Gander are the ones that should have prevailed in the

corridors of power in Ottawa, if this government was doing a proper job. If they

weren't going to prevail, Mr. Speaker, instead of having an after-the-fact

petition and a committee headed by the Mayor of Gander, fine gentleman as he is

- but an after-the-fact petition from the people of Central Newfoundland and

complaints by this government after the fact are no substitute for a timely

intervention by a provincial government of this Province.

What really needs to happen, Mr. Speaker, is some explanation from this

government as to why this was allowed to happen in the case of the Gander

weather office and why the people of Manitoba and the Government of Manitoba and

the MPs from Manitoba were able to forestall that decision and change the

government's plan so that there is forecasting done in the City of Winnipeg.

I agree with the former minister, the Member for Gander, that the excuses

being offered by Minister Anderson don't hold water. This is nonsense about

access to research facilities. There are very competent research facilities in

this Province. We have communications second to none in terms of knowledge

exchange, knowledge communications, Internet access, Broadband, two systems

running across the Province, access everywhere to all sorts of scientific

information, a major university, in fact the largest university in the Atlantic

Provinces is in this Province with major areas of research in all fields of

science, arts and medicine.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are just excuses. They are not reasons, they are just

excuses. Really, Mr. Speaker, what we need to hear is why this government wasn't

able to be effective in making this happen and why this was allowed to happen

without an effective campaign, a public campaign, before the decision was

allowed to be made, instead of waiting until after the fact and now asking the

minister to change his mind, which he has already said he is not going to do.

I know the Premier and the Member for Gander visited him in Ottawa a couple

of weeks ago and were told, point blank, that he is not going to change his

mind, that his mind is made up. So, Mr. Speaker, I accept that the member has

very logical and sensible and commonsense arguments, but what is missing is any

political understanding of what the problem is and how this government proposes

to solve that problem at the political level, because this is a political

problem. It is a political problem that this government has failed to confront

properly and has failed to resolve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure today to rise and support the resolution presented by

the hon. Member for Gander. I would just like to have a few words about the

resolution and the importance, Mr. Speaker.

We realize in Central Newfoundland today that the weather station is very

important for all the people around the Province, especially for the

fisherpeople who go out on the water every day and need to know exactly what the

weather conditions are going to be. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the

federal government, Environment Canada, would let such an important issue as

this be taken out of Gander and put into Halifax. The few jobs that are involved

in the weather station in Gander are a lot more important to Newfoundland than

they would be to Nova Scotia. These jobs are very good jobs, high paid jobs, and

they probably go unnoticed in Nova Scotia; but here in Newfoundland we need

every job we can get to maintain not only the lifestyle of our people but to

provide that very important service.

Mr. Speaker, as we go around the Province today we can talk to a lot of

people who avail of this service, like pilots and outdoors people who rely a lot

on the weather conditions. I remember back in 1977 when I first took my pilot's

licence in Gander, the importance of the weather to people like that who need to

know every day, to plan their day, to plan what they are going to be doing for

the day or the week. They need to know exactly what the weather conditions are.

I think, because we are so close to these conditions right here in the Province,

we need the information to come from the Province. This information can probably

come from anywhere in the world because of the technology.

The minister had a very good speech on the different issues pertaining to why

it should stay there. It was a good job she did and I would just like to support

her on that, because anybody who is dealing with the outdoors and dealing with

the oceans here in the North Atlantic, we are surrounded by water here, we need

these conditions announced publicly right from people who are experienced right

here in the Province.

Even in my family, my niece worked with Environment Canada and the weather

station in Gander, and she just got transferred to Ontario, but this type of

work is important for our young people in this Province. We must lobby the

federal government, lobby Mr. Anderson and our federal MPs. I know Rex Barnes,

our MP for Gander-Grand Falls has been on this issue and he has been very

energetic in going around, having meetings, and doing what he could do to try to

force Environment Canada and the minister to have another look at this, to make

sure that this service stays right here in the Province. Me, being next door to

Gander, sort of gives me some interest in trying to support the community of

Gander, too, because all of Central Newfoundland depends on each other. What

happens in Gander affects what happens in Grand Falls-Windsor, and vice-versa.

We always come together to fight for each other in Central Newfoundland.

Sometimes we are going to have to depend on the government, and other members

and ministers throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure

that as much pressure as possible can be put on this issue to make sure that it

stays in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, I remember even back years ago, Gander was such an important

place for travel, air travel in the world. It was called the Crossroads of the

World. If Gander was good enough to be the Crossroads of the World back then,

Gander should be good enough now to keep this service there and keep the people

employed there.

If we do not do this now, then, as the minister said, there is 1.7 million

square miles of area that is affected by this station. If you look at the maps

of Newfoundland and see all the small communities right around the coastline,

the people in these communities pay a lot of attention to the weather forecast.

Even people who do not go out on the water, do not even go out of their houses,

still their big thing in the day is listening to the weather forecast to see

what the conditions are going to be for the day, Mr. Speaker. Some of these

people may just even want to go in to cut their firewood, but the weather

conditions are always important because we do not want to have any disasters,

any situations where people who use our outdoors, use our resources, our water

resources and other types of resources in the Province, not having the

confidence that they have now. They have a lot of confidence in the reporting

from the weather station in Gander. They can use their time in this Province

with the confidence of knowing the weather forecasting is correct. I am not

saying that it would not be correct from any other place in Canada, but this

technology that we have to do this can be done here. The jobs are very important

for here.

Why are we going to sit by and not do anything? We all should be making our

voices very clear on the importance of this staying here, and supporting the

provincial government and the Member for Gander, giving her all the support that

we can give her to make sure that this station stays in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, how can this happen? How can this be? Up until

now - what has happened for this station to go? I know Rex Barnes, and as I said

earlier, was on this issue, but we need the other MPs. We need all the MPs in

the Province supporting Rex Barnes, supporting the Member for Gander. We need

all the support we can get to put the pressure on Minister Anderson and

another look at this, come back and say, yes, we agree, this is a very important

issue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a very important issue for

the people of Gander, a very important issue for the users of the forecasting in

this Province, and that they would say yes, we will change this, change our

minds and keep this in Gander for the services like the Air Search and Rescue

Unit and the forest fire fighting units, the air services for the provincial

government that are in Gander. These people use this reporting every day. If

Gander is a good enough place to have Air Search and Rescue, provincial forest

fire air services and other air services in the Province, right in the

crossroads of the world, if that is good enough for that, then it is good enough

to keep this weather station in Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the speaking on it, but I would

just like to say that I am certainly in support of this resolution. All the

people on this side, all my colleagues on this side are supporting this

resolution, and let the Member for Gander know that we are out there fighting to

give you support to make sure this is resolved.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I understand the agreement is that I will close

the debate on this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased we are to have the support of hon.

members with respect to this private member's resolution, the Member for

Gander, in asking the federal government to reverse its decision with respect to

the weather forecasting station at Gander.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any decision made by any federal government

that is more illogical, lacks more sensitivity, than this particular decision by

the federal government.

Now the hon. Member for Quidi Vidi was making the suggestion that maybe we

were not as engaged as the government for Manitoba. Well, I want to dispel that

myth. This government has been actively involved in trying to promote the Gander

weather forecasting station as a centre of excellence or as the capital, if you

will, of weather forecasting, the chief weather forecasting centre in Atlantic

Canada. This has been done on a number of occasions. I will cite for hon.

members the specific representations that were made by the provincial

government. In July, 1993, it was proposed that Gander be made the aviation

forecast centre for Atlantic Canada. In February, 1994, following the downsizing

that was proposed for Gander, again the proposal was made that Gander be made a

chief site for forecasting. In July of 1996 it was proposed again, and it was

done again in 1997.

In my own case, after numerous meetings with federal ministers urging and

requesting a greater federal presence in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, at no time was it ever mentioned to me the federal government's

intention to downgrade the weather forecasting facility at Gander. Neither was

it made to any of the other ministers who on many, many occasions spoke to the

federal ministers. Nobody ever indicated that such action was being taken by the

federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that many of the MPs were blind sided on this issue

as well. For four specific periods the provincial government made specific

recommendations and up until January, later than that, we were assured that

everything was okay in Gander. So, I say to the hon. member first of all, that

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did everything that the Government

of Manitoba did. The difference was that they ignored the request of the

provincial government. The reasons they gave for setting up a special service

centre in Winnipeg - one would think were identical to the reasons why they

should have made Gander a similar facility to that in Winnipeg. The reason why

they stated for Winnipeg was the fact that it had a rather complex weather

system.

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador had a very unique and complex weather system. I do not have much of a

science background, Mr. Speaker, but in getting my undergraduate degree, back in

those days, one had to complete a science course; one science course I had to

complete. Having graduated in Gambo, back in those days, we did not have many

science facilities in the school at Gambo. I was rather weak, scientifically,

with any science courses. So I was looking for what I thought was a cinch

course, as we called them in those days, to get my science. I did not want to

get into chemistry or biology. I was not interested because I was going on in

the arts and I was not into science at all. The word around was that geology was

a real easy course, but passed as a science course.

So I took the course and, Mr. Speaker, one thing I never forgot, one part of

the course that we all had to do was a major paper and a presentation. I always

thought I could do fairly well on that so I looked for that to get this major

paper. The topic I took - I don't know, I would expect that it is treasured at

Memorial University right now. I expect the written assignment is still there if

one were to inquire. It was entitled the effect of cyclones on climate in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I expect at that time it just said Newfoundland. The

effect of cyclones on forecasting climate in Newfoundland; on forecasting

weather conditions. Well, it was the first time that I realized how difficult it

was. I have often wondered that, because back in those days we were not as

accurate as we are today and people had some very nasty words to say about the

weather forecast. It was never correct; never right. Wrong more times than it

was right.

I found out from that paper how difficult it was to forecast accurately the

weather in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had many interviews with meteorologists

at the airport here and I became an expert, almost, on why it was difficult

because of our geographic location, and it is the best course I have ever done.

It is the only thing I can remember from any course I have ever done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Well, cyclones in the geological sense. It was just the winds,

basically - and I, too, did not realize we had cyclones, but we do. At least the

windstorms that we have can be classified as cyclones.

So, Mr. Speaker, being situated where we are with the Labrador Gulf Stream

coming down from the north and the St. Lawrence stream, and the streams from the

south, all of these mixing together make it very, very difficult to forecast

weather in Newfoundland.

That was the case. I learned that back in the 1960s, how difficult it was to

forecast the weather in Newfoundland, and I do not expect anything has changed

at all since then. The circumstances that made our weather difficult to forecast

are still in existence today. There is not a province in the country, not a

province in Canada that depends more on the weather than the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would

expect there is not a group of people in Canada that talk more about the weather

than Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because we were engaged in the fishery and

the wind was so important to our forefathers.

I do not know about hon. members present, but I know my father, every morning

he would get up - when he was home he would look out the window and see which

way the smoke was going. He would say the wind is blowing northwest this

morning, or northeast, and I would mutter - I did not have a clue. I would

mutter to myself: what difference does it make which way it is blowing, I still

have to go to school. But these people, to them the wind was very important. The

direction of the wind and the weather forecast. We have had it in the fisheries

everyday and we still have it now; the forecast everyday. It is amazing the

number of people who listen to the forecast, not connected with the fishery. It

is a part of our culture. It is a part of our heritage.

If the federal government really wanted to do something for Newfoundland and

Labrador, you did not need a Red Book. You did not need a Blue Book. You did not

need any kind of book at all. If there was something the federal government

wanted to do for Newfoundland and Labrador and make us a centre of excellence

and demonstrated sensitivity and its response to the needs of the people of this

Province, how easy it was. How easy it was to make Gander a centre of

excellence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: A place that has been forecasting the weather for practically

six generations. It is synonymous with the weather in Newfoundland and in many

parts of Atlantic Canada. Mr. Speaker, it was so easy. It was so simple if the

federal government wanted to do that. If they wanted to show that they were

doing something for Newfoundland and Labrador, and with ample justification,

with ample reason. It did not happen. Is it little wonder that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have become so distraught, so distressed, so

aggravated by recent actions of the federal government, and this being the one

that compounds the whole situation.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. Member for Gander for presenting this

resolution and I thank hon. members opposite for their support. I would hope

that the support will be generated right throughout the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador so that the federal government will be moved and forced to look at

the proposal that the hon. Member for Gander and our Department of

Intergovernmental Affairs is making to the federal minister. I want to assure

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this government, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, worked hard and diligently in terms of trying to

protect and enhance the Gander weather forecasting facility.

I just want to conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that Memorial University

works in the area of meteorology. One would expect that. One is not surprised by

the fact that Memorial University would have some skills, would have some

expertise in this area, right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. I understand

there are two faculties at Memorial that engage in weather forecasting, marine

activity. Again, what a great opportunity that the federal government missed to

work in co-operation with Memorial University, so that they could take advantage

of the expertise and the skill that we have at Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I just to conclude by again assuring the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador and the people of Gander and surrounding area that this government

does not intend to let up on this issue. We intend to push and pursue in hopes

that the federal government will be responsive to the very reasonable request of

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

I declare the resolution carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to ask Your Honour if he would move to Order 2, which is a

motion for Committee of Supply, where we will debate the Estimates, the

Consolidated Fund Services, the Legislature and Executive Council.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

Order 2 , Estimates, Consolidated Fund Services, Legislature and Executive

Council.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to begin discussion on Executive

Council and the overview on the Budget Estimates that are discussed here through

the Legislature. Of course, I do want to highlight a few things before we get

started.

As members opposite would see, or those that have a copy of the Estimates, in

the Budget that was prepared last year there was actually $830,000 less spent

than budgeted. As you know, the almost $1 million less in expenditure is due to

the measures that we put in place last year to put in overall controlling

expenditures to try to do our part, like all other departments, of course, with

the exception of Health and Justice, which did not come under the 8 and 5 per

cent rule.

Also, I would like to say that this year's Budget has increased over last

year's Budget by approximately $3 million. The rationale for that, I would

like to speak to for just a few minutes as part of our overview. I would

anticipate that there will be specific questions as we go through. I would like

to speak specifically to the issues around the whole Budget and why the overall

estimate amount is higher this year.

First of all, it is important to note that with our public sector wage

increases of 5, 5 and 5, this is the last year of that particular collective

agreement. So, most of our salary votes, of course, have increased by

approximately 5 per cent, to be exact 5.06 per cent, over and above last year's

expenditures. Of course, that would account for almost $700,000 on the baseline

budget from last year to this year.

Also, I think, which is important to note, is that this year we have

allocated almost $1 million, $910,000, to upgrade our Oracle software program.

For the people of the Province, this is the software program that we use to do

our public accounts. We use it to print the cheques, all of the cheques of

government, whether they are social assistance cheques. This isn't the program

that actually does the calculations, but it is the program that prints all of

the cheques for government, including social assistance cheques. It allows us to

do all of our inventory. It allows us to verify and go through the process of

any kind of exchange that goes through government. So, that is our main system.

It is called the Oracle system. It is quite old and outdated and really we have

no choice but to upgrade it. In fact, this year we will spend $910,000 on that.

Next year, again, we will have no choice but to finish that at about another

$1.1 million. It is a $2 million upgrade. So that accounts, right now, for about

$2.7 million of the $3 million that shows as an increase this year over last

year.

In addition, we have increased the number of positions, which I am quite

proud of, for our Opening Doors Program. As people know, this is a program that

is designed to create employment for people with disabilities. This is a program

that used to be housed out in the various departments and government was not

pleased at the appropriate hiring practices that were occurring, in that many

times people with disabilities were not being hired. We are quite proud of the

fact that right now we have seventy-one people working within our government

departments, persons with disabilities, who are making fantastic contributions.

I believe it is a program that we want to make sure that it continues to grow.

In addition to that, we know that we will receive less revenue as well for

excise tax refunds. I can speak to that a little bit later as well.

Over and above last year's budget allocation, the bulk of the increase that

we have identified has been to upgrade our current computer system, which

requires as being necessary for the public accounts of the Province, for all of

our financial transactions and for the printing of cheques. Also, our wage and

salary increases and, of course, additionally I think it is important to note

that there is an increased allocation of $700,000 for the Royal Commission to

complete its mandate, which is expected this particular June. That brings, of

course, a total of $3 million for that Royal Commission.

In addition to that - and this is a very important initiative for us - we

know that over the next coming years, four to five years, we will be losing

about 4,200 people from our public service. We have put in place a program right

now whereby we are going to be looking at human resource management initiatives.

Two components, one around direct hiring of new graduates particularly in hard

to fill areas. The second component is on employee training at all levels, from

front line all the way up to middle managers and also senior executives.

Madam Chair, that accounts for the overview of the overall increase. I would

be happy to answer questions from the member opposite.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am going to try to follow it in the order of numbers here with reference to

any particular questions. I know the first one is Government House. I am going

to skip by that one because my colleague from Bonavista South is very interested

in that one. In due course, he will have an opportunity to ask some revealing

questions I am sure on some aspects there.

Items under the Premier's Office; it lists the projected salary in the

Premier's Office for this year of $981,000. The salary detail booklet, on page

9 of that, shows that there are fifteen employees making up the salary there in

the Premier's Office. The total in the salary detail booklet shows that there

are $899,353 showing specifically in the salary detail. Normally, I guess, I am

assuming that they are permanent employees. I am just drawing a conclusion. I

would like the minister to answer that; the remaining $83,000, I would like to

know what that is being used for in this particular year as opposed to the

positions listed out.

The positions listed out in the Departmental Salary Details book are: the

Premier, the Chief of Staff, Director of Communications, Senior Policy Analyst,

Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, Assistant Chief of Staff, Executive

Assistants, there are two. By the way, there are two Directors of Communication.

There are also, in addition to Executive Assistants, there is: a Special

Assistant, a Director of Administration and Finance in the Premier's Office, a

Secretary to the Chief of Staff, Administrative Assistant, Receptionist. So that

is fifteen positions listed there. Could the minister elaborate on the

difference there between the Salary Details and the particular total Budget that

is listed here in the Estimates?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to point out that this salary allocation accounts for fifteen

permanents. As you know, in all of government recordings only permanent staff

are actually identified. It also includes temporary assistants, any overtime, as

well as a car allowance, which all members are entitled to in the House of

Assembly.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

So you are saying temporary assistants are included in the difference in that

extra $83,000, and a car allowance which is an allowance that is included for

ministers, and any overtime is included in that also. That is the three

categories of breakdown.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Four categories.

MR. SULLIVAN: And the fourth one?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Permanent.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is permanent in that extra too, besides the fifteen.

Fifteen permanent and three other categories.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Right, you said three others. There are four under that

salary budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly, but I am indicating other than what is in the

Salary Details booklet. There are fifteen permanents there. There are three

other categories that make up the difference.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: How much of that would be in temporary staff or temporary

assistants? How much money out of that extra $83,000 have you budgeted for

temporary staff in the Premier's Office, and how many might be normally

budgeted in that particular amount?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, according to our Estimates, we only have the permanent positions and

we have the allowance. The actual amounts for overtime and temporary assistants

is not provided in this report, but I would be certainly happy to provide any of

that information in terms of the breakdown.

You will notice, for any of our votes in any government department we never

include - I think it is important for the people of the Province to know, while

this is the only

section that is done as part of the committee, as part of the

House of Assembly, no other component of government includes the breakdown of

temporaries, overtime, et cetera, as part of the Budget Estimates. So this is no

different than any other department. I will endeavour to get that, I say to the

minister, and I am sure maybe other departments would as well. But we have put

in our budgetary items -

MR. FITZGERALD: He is not a minister yet, but he soon will be.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Sorry, you are right. He is not a minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, I want to apology for that mistake.

I will say to the member opposite, again, as he would know, in absolutely all

of the departments of government there is never a breakdown in temporary, for

obvious reasons. Some people work for six weeks; some people work for eight

weeks. Anybody over a certain period of time is posted. So it is a very complex

process. This is not a specific exemption. This is a normal exemption applied

right across all parts of government.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was not looking for a breakdown necessarily in the number of temporaries.

Out of that $83,000, my understanding is that car allowance is about $8,000. I

am not sure if that has increased proportionally with the increase. It is still

at $8,000, I think, which would leave about $75,000 to be split between overtime

and temporaries. I am wondering what number was plugged in for temporaries. Was

it $30,000, $40,000, $50,000? Could you give us the breakdown? If you have three

categories there must be a breakdown for temporaries and a breakdown for

overtime.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: As I said when he asked the previous question, normally

departments do not have the breakdowns for temporary assistants and overtime. I

will endeavour to get that for you, as I said in the previous answer to the

question you asked. That I would certainly endeavour to provide that information

on the various breakdowns of both the temporary assistants and the overtime.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

So, the minister is basically saying that really what she does have now is

just two categories, I guess, the car allowance category and the other two. You

just have the one figure there basically for them, the overtime and the

temporary amount. Because the Salary Details book lists $899,353 and, of course,

this Estimates lists $981,000. That is a difference of approximately $83,000,

rounded off. In that $83,000, $8,000 for a car allowance, that leaves $75,000.

So, out of the $75,000, if I understand the minister correctly, she is stating

that this $75,000 - you have not broken it down into overtime. For example, it

is $30,000 and temporary is $45,000 or $25,000 and $50,000. Would I be correct

in that the minister does not have a breakdown of how much for each of these

areas?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

No, I can say that you are not correct. I did not say I did not have it. I

said I did not have it with me as part of the Estimates, and I would endeavour

to provide it because any part of this documentation for all departments is

based on the breakdowns normally of permanent positions. I would be happy to

endeavour to provide that. But, do I have it right here on my sheet at the

moment? I do not because it is not part of the Estimates. It is over and above

the Estimates and I would be happy to provide it when I receive it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hopefully, the minister would be able to get back on that particular - with

the breakdown there, maybe when we resume debate, I guess, under this on another

day.

Under Employee Benefits; in the last fiscal year, 2002-2003, there was a

budget of $2,500 under Employee Benefits and an expenditure of $500. What would

have accounted for that? Because we are budgeting again $2,500. What would be

the difference in $2,000? Why would that have happened?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, as I said in my opening comments, last year overall this whole

section

reduced its budget by almost $1 million. One of the ways it did that was by - if

you look at what this actually means, this category is a sign for membership and

also conference registration fees. I would make the statement that fewer

conferences and fewer registration fees were used last year. What it does show

is that this particular component in the Premier's Office was an allocation.

It was not all spent and, as a result, it went back into the general revenue.

Our best advice is that put the same allocation there again this year. We do not

know what conferences may come up that may be very important, or what kind of

fees may be required. If it is not used, it will be put back in CRS. If it is

used, it will be used very wisely. You can see that this account was budgeted at

$2,500 and only $500 was spent but the allocation remains at $2,500.

Traditionally we have not decreased the votes or the actual headings and

allocations because not all of the money was utilized. We give people the

opportunity to manage, make decisions, and, if the need is there, they have the

ability to fill that need. So far it looks as though it has been spent

responsibly.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The reason I asked was because the number, even though the budget overall in

this category changed and went down, the salary items did not, or the number of

employees stayed exactly as budgeted. That is why I asked, where employee

benefits was one-fifth of that but the salaries were the same. The same number

of employees, I assume, that you budgeted, the same amount of money paid out in

salaries. The minister indicated that it was put back in again in the event that

a decision might need to made to use that.

One particular area that has changed is under 03.Transportation and

Communication. That is basically, I guess, Premier's travel in that particular

area. Being Chair of Public Accounts we have just come through, I guess, dealing

with that issue under Protocol and under Premier's travel, traditionally what

has been happening since 1989. We asked questions in Public Accounts. In 1989,

the policy started with the Premier moving his travel out of the Premier's

Office and putting it under Protocol and then it was farmed out to every

department, almost, every single department. That is in the records of our

Public Accounts, and it was being shipped out to every department. The Premier's

travel could be under the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It

could be under the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Not only was in

under minister's travel in other departments; it was also under other line

items in other departments, which was spread so thin it was almost impossible to

track the Premier' travel in terms of the amount.

That is one of the particular areas of concern that we expressed. I know that

I expressed it in Public Accounts also that all Premier's travel should come

under Premier's travel, whether he travels for a fishery purpose or whether he

travels for a works, service and transportation purpose. If he goes to Ottawa,

Halifax, whether it is on tourism, wherever it is, a meeting of Atlantic

Premiers or New England Governors, it should be under Premier's travel and it

should not be hidden in all other departments. It should not be hidden under

human resources and employment, for example. It should be put in one specific

area.

Now, I understand that this figure of $375,000 is the figure for the Premier's

travel. Would that be the Premier's Office travel only? Am I correct now in

assuming that after the Auditor General's report that this was happening, and

statements by your officials in Public Accounts, that it is now under the

Premier's Office and that is where it all comes from? Can we feel secure in

saying that all travel now by the Premier of this Province will come under this

item in the Budget and not under other items?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it is important to note that the allocation last year was for

$380,000 for the Premier's travel. That was reduced by $130,000. Not all of

the travel that was budgeted was used.

I also want to point out that as soon as Premier Grimes was made aware by the

Auditor General of the concerns around previous premiers' travel particularly

being allocated into different departments, immediately - notwithstanding the

fact that it was in the middle of a year - those changes were made immediately.

So this has been the practice now for almost two years. I can assure all those

listening that the allocation for travel is the full allocation. There is none

awarded to any other department or any other component of anything related to

government, except for what you see right here. That is the full allocation.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I might add, though, it was. One of the members sitting on the committee

asked a question that, after February 2001, were there any charges to that in

other accounts when the Premier took office? Now after the Premier took office,

several months after, of course, there were charges in other areas. I have been

informed by officials - and all this is in the records of Public Accounts - that

they were reverted from those departments after they were informed it was

happening there. Now this has been a repeated practice. We had put it on the

agenda back, I think it was May or March of last year we decided that this would

be an issue for Public Accounts to look at it. We did discover that things were

moved back. The purpose, I guess, of Auditor General reports and dealing with

things in Public Accounts - I know sometimes it is after the fact in Public

Accounts - basically, it is to stop the practice and to correct it.

The minister tells us now that any travel the Premier does would be the

$375,000 that is here in the particular Budget. Are there any extraordinary

items of travel that are projected to happen in this particular allotment, I ask

the minister? Is it basically generalities and there are no extraordinary or

exceptional areas that are known, we