March 23, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 5

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to simply indicate to all members that recently a former member

of the House of Assembly passed away. I refer to the late Brendan Howard who

died Monday of this week. Mr. Howard is a former member of this House, and he

represented the District of Bay de Verde from 1972 to 1975. In fact, he was

buried in St. John's this morning. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members

in passing our condolences on to the family of the late Brendan Howard, his wife

Beth, and children Danny, Dominic, Brenda, Robert, Daphne and Colleen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute

to Norman Penney, a resident and councillor of the town of Victoria who passed

away on March 9. Norm, as he was affectionately known, was a tireless worker for

his community. He helped found the Victoria Community Development Corporation in

1992. He was also a member of the Victoria Heritage and Tourism Society. He also

served many organizations including the Loyal Orange Lodge, the Masonic Lodge

and the Lions Club. He was also a devoted member of the Baccalieu Amateur Radio

Club since 1976, through which he made friends around the world. Norm was a firm

believer that good things could only happen when people worked together. He was

a very vocal supporter of cooperation.

I knew Norman Penney as an individual of great principle. He stood very

sternly for what he believed in and he served the residents of Victoria

throughout his life. I want to pass along my deepest sympathy to his wife

Rosalie and his family on his passing. He was an individual who will be long

remembered for his hard work and his ideals.

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

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

I would like to offer congratulations and best wishes to the Beaconsfield

High School Concert Band. This fifty-nine member band will be traveling to Cuba

on April 16 and they will be performing at five Cuban high schools in the first

five days. Actually, in the first five days they will be giving seven

performances. Beaconsfield, since its inception, has had a long tradition of

having really excellent concert bands. I had the privilege of hearing them

perform on Remembrance Day in the fall. They are absolutely marvelous.

So to Dave Brown, their leader, to the parents who raised $107,000 so they

could realize their dream, and to the band themselves I offer my best wishes and

congratulations.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the auspices of the School Children Food Foundation, a breakfast club

was formally established at Pasadena Academy on October 12, 1999. With the aid

of a $2,000 grant from the Foundation and with the financial assistance of some

forty-three partner groups within the community, the club now provides breakfast

for an average of 127 K to VI children each day. On some days, as many as 150

children are served a nutritious breakfast consisting of toast, cereal, milk and

juice. The club is open to all children within the school and is billed as an

opportunity to partake of a nutritious breakfast in the company of their peers.

All five churches in Pasadena are active participants in the program with

each having a list of twenty to twenty-five individuals who have volunteered to

prepare and serve food. As an occasion to commemorate March as Nutrition Month,

a dietician will be at the school tomorrow and a display of nutritious food

products and recipes will be had.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to all

those who are involved in this program at Pasadena Elementary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Virginia Park Action Committee on a very

successful effort to restore their neighborhood school to a full K to VI program

in that community.

This time last year the school was on the list for closure, and indeed in

April of last year it was changed from a K to VI to a K to III school. Even

worse, in June almost half of the school burnt down, but the community rallied

around and under the banner K to VI -Worth Fighting For,' they fought,

lobbied, petitioned and eventually convinced the Avalon East School Board to

rebuild their school and restore it to a full K to VI program. This was a very

successful community effort to restore a neighborhood school. The next challenge

is to rebuild the entire school with a new building when funds are available.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of the outcome of Fisheries Forum

2000: A Forum on Sustainability and Viability, which is part of government's

pro-active efforts and commitment to create a sustainable and viable fishery for

the future. This conference, held on March 14 and 15, brought together key

industry and community stakeholders to discuss important issues and challenges

facing our fishery.

I am very pleased to report that Fisheries Forum 2000 was indeed a success

with over 300 people participating from across the Province, representing all

facets of the fishery. The forum was very productive and informative, focusing

on major issues that are before us as we move forward in rebuilding our fishing

industry. Some of the issues highlighted during the forum included conservation,

the status of our marine resource, resource allocation, fisheries research,

quality, harvesting methods, education and training, workplace safety, community

stability, diversification and co-operation between governments and industry.

A key message from all the issues raised by the participants was that if we

want to continue rebuilding and diversifying our fishery then it must be managed

in a sustainable manner and we must all play a role in ensuring that we do not

repeat the mistakes we made in the past with our groundfishery.

Concerns over our snow crab resource were raised at the forum following

recent surveys by DFO scientists that showed poor recruitment in the crab

biomass in some areas around the Province. Although this information is

preliminary, Mr. Speaker, and is a result of nature, not overfishing, we must

ensure that we do whatever is necessary to avoid a collapse of the crab fishery

down the road. We must be conservation-minded and protect our lucrative crab

fishery for the long term.

Despite becoming a $1 billion industry in 1999, there are many challenges in

the fishery, and probably the greatest of these is doing what is best for the

fishery overall and the communities who depend on it with compromising our

valuable fish stocks. We must also continue to look at new opportunities for

small boat fishermen who are still trying to adjust to the collapse of the

traditional groundfishery. It has been eight years sine the moratorium and still

there are many unanswered question surrounding our groundfish stocks. It is

vital that we address these questions along with other important fisheries

issues in a collaborative effort. We must apply the lessons we have learned form

the past in managing our fishery today with conservation being the key

principle. Fisheries Forum 2000 illustrates our commitment to the need for

public input on such a critical issue.

I want to state clearly, Mr. Speaker, that my department noted every concern

and policy issue that were identified at Fisheries Forum 2000 and we will follow

up on these issues in a timely fashion with industry. My department will

continue to be pro-active in addressing the challenges of our fishery in a

prudent and responsible manner.

To ensure a sustainable, viable fishery for the future, we need a commitment

from everybody in the industry and I am proud to say that such a commitment was

very evident at Fisheries Forum 2000. I commend the participants for their

interest and look forward to continue working with the stakeholders in our

fishery, because I believe that together we can create a sustainable fishery

that will benefit future generations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that I, too, attended most of the activities down at

the hotel for the Fisheries Forum 2000. This is an industry where we have many

problems. Even after eight years of a downturn in the groundfish industry, and

the devastation that has been caused to communities and people in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of those problems are still very evident.

Any time you can bring the stakeholders together, sit with the

decision-makers and discuss problems, it has to be positive; because many of the

problems that existed prior to 1992 are still there today.

I have attended many of those forums, year after year; they were held in

Clarenville. Many of the same problems, I say to the minister, that were brought

up in those first forums came on the floor of your forum and the Fisheries Forum

2000 down at the Newfoundland Hotel. I wonder how far or how fast we are moving

ahead, when you see the topic of what gear we are allowed to use in the year

2000 in order to go out and fish cod stocks and other groundfish stocks. We don't

know yet, Mr. Speaker, if people are allowed to use gill nets or if they are not

allowed to use gill nets. We don't know yet if people should be allowed to go

and build a boat that will allow them to be able to fish with some degree of

comfort and safety, or if they are going to have to go and plead to the federal

minister and say: Please, get off my back, get out of my pocket, and let me

build a boat and fish a boat that will allow me to provide myself and my crew

with some degree of comfort and safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a disaster waiting to happen, I say to the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture. When you see the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Fisheries Forum 2000 obviously underscores the great interest and concern

about the most important industry in our Province. Given the state of the

groundfish stocks, and particularly the moratorium over the last number of

years, it is inevitable that issues of conversation and harvesting would be to

the forefront.

We also have to look as well, though, at issues of developing new products

and new markets for those products. I would encourage the minister to consider

the whole issue of research and development in new products, and finding some

role for the provincial government in helping support that effort as well,

because it is only through additional new products will we be having more value

added to our fishing industry and create even more jobs from the billion dollar

industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform hon. members about several

upcoming trade initiatives that my department will be participating in with

companies from across Newfoundland and Labrador.

This week, officials from my department, together with representatives from

three environmental companies, are attending Globe 2000 in Vancouver. This event

is the world's premier international conference and trade fair on developing

the environmental sector.

Over the next eight to ten years, the worldwide demand for environmental

technologies, products, and services is expected to grow by 8 per cent annually.

We are fortunate to have more than 130 companies operating in the environmental

industry in this Province. These companies have a diverse range of environmental

products and services that can meet this growing demand.

Already, our environmental sector contributes an estimated $80 million to

$100 million to our economy. Globe 2000 is a chance for our local companies to

explore new export opportunities for their products and services, and for us to

showcase our industry's exciting work.

This initiative is being supported through the Canada/Atlantic Province's

COOPERATION Agreement on International Business Development.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I will be leading a delegation of twelve provincial

companies and organizations to Boston for BIO 2000, one of the leading

international conferences and exhibitions for the biotechnology industry. This

year's event is expected to be the largest ever, with approximately 7,000

industry leaders and executives representing 2,000 companies from forty

countries.

Our Province is one of Canada's leaders in marine biotechnology, and

Memorial University of Newfoundland houses Centres of Excellence which work in

partnership with our local companies in their research.

This conference will help us to position Newfoundland and Labrador as a

centre of marine biotechnology excellence to an international audience.

Funding through the Canada/Newfoundland Comprehensive Economic Development

Agreement is being provided to the Province's newly formed biotechnology

industry association, Bio-East, to represent the industry at this important

conference.

Mr. Speaker, the New England Food Service Promotion 2000, hosted by the

Epicurean Club of Massachusetts, is also taking place in Boston next week. It is

being sponsored by Agriculture Canada in conjunction with the Canadian Consul

General in Boston.

Through support from my department's Marketing and Product Development

Program, several companies from Newfoundland and Labrador will be attending the

one-day educational seminar. It is aimed at informing Canadian food suppliers

about entering the New England market.

These international events will help to build on the New England Trade and

Investment Strategy which I announced last fall. This will enable us to optimize

export opportunities for local companies, provide possible leads for New England

businesses to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador, and increase awareness about

our Province's high quality products and services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The products that are provided by Newfoundland companies are quality

products. The services that Newfoundlanders provide are quality services and our

labour force provides a quality labour. That is evident in the high demand for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout the world in their labour force. We

should be promoting our products and our people to the rest of the world, and it

is important to do that. Any time we can do that, it is a positive thing for

industry in this Province. I am not sure how quality - it comes from the other

side; because we see a lot of these trips, a lot of these trade missions, and

yet we have been told that Newfoundland falls behind in growth to trade to the

United States from what other provinces are experiencing since free trade has

been brought in.

While I feel this is a positive initiative, maybe we can be doing even more

than we are doing to promote our products. Maybe we can be doing even more than

we are doing to promote the services and labour abilities that this Province has

to offer throughout the United States to catch up with other provinces, the

growth that other provinces have experienced in the United States in export

since free trade has been brought in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been on record many times as supporting the efforts of government and

the trade missions to promote our industries. We have also been asking for a

report card from the minister on the issue of trade and what kind of trade

increases we have seen through the various sectors that we have, and I hope the

minister, at some point, is going to give us one.

We also need some strong policies as we move into new areas as well, such as

biotechnology and genetic research. We have yet to see, as well, any significant

statement by this government as to how the whole issue of genetic research

should be handled so that we can have maximum benefits in this Province and also

some control over the genetic resource that is here for research and

development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Education, I would like to invite

all Members of the House of Assembly, and all members of the general public, to

support the School Lunch Association's SKIP-A-LUNCH campaign, and donate the

money they usually spend on lunch to the St. John's School Lunch Association.

While today is SKIP-A-LUNCH day, the invitation to support this program is open

for any day of the year.

This is the 3 rd annual SKIP-A-LUNCH event held by The School Lunch

Association to raise awareness of the issue of child poverty and its effect on

children's education, and to raise funds in support of the Hot Lunch Program

operated by the association in city schools.

This event is endorsed by the Premier and Mrs. Tobin, the entire Liberal

caucus, the Department of Education, and many prominent figures from the

political, business, arts, entertainment, and media communities.

Government's support of school meal programs is evidenced by our recent

endowment of $1 million to the School Children's Food Foundation. This is in

addition to the $1 million endowment granted in 1998. As well, government gives

an annual grant of $75,000 to the School Lunch Association.

The School Lunch Association was founded in 1989 by a small committee of

individuals who recognized the correlation between hunger and a child's

ability to learn. The association helps children take full advantage of their

educational opportunities by operating a non-stigmatizing program that provides

hot, nutritious lunches to children at school, regardless of their families'

ability to pay.

Mr. Speaker, we encourage everyone to support the SKIP-A-LUNCH program.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the Ministerial

Statement given by the hon. Judy Foote and I appreciate it coming into my hands

prior to entering the House.

The SKIP-A-LUNCH program obviously is a wonderful initiative to bring to the

attention of the entire Province the problems that we have in making sure that

the children of this Province have adequate nourishment so they can learn in a

positive way.

I would like to add the support of the members on this side of the House to

the SKIP-A-LUNCH program. I guess I live for the day when this valuable service

might be universal for all the students in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I draw particular attention to the rural areas of our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I draw particular attention to the rural areas of our

Province. The recent moves to restructure have created some large regional

schools that are causing long bus rides. It is very important, when these

children get to the schools they are going to, that they do have the proper

nourishment to go on for their particular day.

Again, I encourage this government to look at the possibility of providing a

universal program to all students.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have supported the St. John's School Lunch Association who introduced

the concept of a stigma-free lunch program, and support the SKIP-A-LUNCH day,

but we want to see a universal, comprehensive school lunch program for which we

have been campaigning for two or three years.

The Member for Humber East today talked about a program in his district that

has taken forty-three community partners in order to be able to make happen.

It is obvious that in very many parts of this Province, particularly in rural

Newfoundland, there cannot be a program because there are not those partners and

there are not enough volunteers.

Once again, I ask government to consider a universal, comprehensive program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

While today is being characterized as SKIP-A-LUNCH day, yesterday can be

characterized as skip-the-details day. Let me tell you that now. We would like

to unveil some of that today with respect to the Budget.

My questions are for the acting Minister of Finance. In about two years from

now, when the Auditor General reports on what the actual deficit was in this

Budget - she did it last year, she will do it this year, a year or so later -

she will report that the actual deficit on this year's Budget is not $35

million, as projected by this government, but it will be more in the vicinity of

about $325 million. Here is how she will arrive at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now.

One-time draw down measures; structural problems that we are going to be left

to deal with when this Premier is gone somewhere else, that is the problem.

I would like to ask the acting Minister of Finance: What will be the actual

Budget deficit, the consolidated revenue of the Province, for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, in all seriousness, I am

absolutely, completely confused by the position of the Opposition.

Yesterday, the former Leader of the Opposition and the current health critic

criticized the Budget for not spending enough on health care and enough on

social programs. The current, for the moment, Leader of the Opposition today is

saying that we spent too much. In fact, he announced yesterday that we are

mortgaging our future.

So we have the Opposition health critic saying we are not doing enough for

health care and education and we have the current Leader of the Opposition

saying we are doing too much, we have mortgaged our future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should listen, on a matter

as important as a budget, to the views of partisan politicians on either side of

the House, so let's examine what the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business has said. Peter O'Brien: This is my twenty-fifth year at the

Newfoundland Budget, and from a small business point of view this is the best

one I've seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Let's examine what the NLTA says. The NLTA says: A good

Budget. Let's examine what the Board of Trade says. The Board of Trade says: A

superb Budget. Let's examine what the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters

says: A superb Budget. Let's examine -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: May I conclude, Sir?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, conclude quickly please.

PREMIER TOBIN: An the bond rating agencies have raised our rating for the

first time in years because of these excellent budgets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Let's not forget; John Peddle said yesterday: We will look at our deficits

and we will come back to government and say: You tell us what services we are

going to have to cut in health care.

What did the president of the nurses' association say yesterday?

Mr. Speaker, if we want to grandstand in Question Period, then both of us can

do it. Let me ask him this question: If we talk about being financially

accountable for the people's money in this House, how much more money could we

have put in health care had we not wasted in excess of $50 million in decisions

that wronged people who were trying to do business with government? How much

more money could we put in health care and education services had the money that

this government loaned out had been done appropriately, had been done in a way

that would garner back, had been done in a way that could create jobs?

Mr. Speaker, it didn't happen. This government in the last two years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - has wasted in excess of $100 million of the people's

money. Let me ask the Premier this. Where could that money have gone in terms of

health and education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that all of those in the House and

all of those who listen to the House have just seen an incredible display. In

the space of one question and one answer the Leader of the Opposition has

already lost his train of thought. He began in the first question saying that we

have mortgaged our future, we have spent too much on health and education, we

have a $350 million deficit, and by question number two he is asking how much

more can we spend in health care. I assume he has consulted the former Leader of

the Opposition. He might want to consult with one of the future leaders of the

Opposition and find out that, in fact, this Budget is a sound budget. It

represents the best fiscal performance over four years - because of the good

work of the previous Minister of Finance, together with the current Minister of

Finance - since Confederation, the strongest growth rate since Confederation and

the best performance in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Let me consult directly with the Premier, probably a future Leader of the

Opposition, and ask him this question. Yesterday the Budget included a $40

million tax cut, which is something that we felt was necessary and which is

something that we felt the Province needed directly in terms of payroll tax, but

government has played a shell game and here is how they have done it. The tax

cut, on the one hand, gives everybody an equal break. It is more than offset by

revenues, one-time expenditures they are taking on the other hand. For example,

yesterday, in the Budget they announced a one-time levee of about $85 million

from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, double what the tax break is.

I would like to ask the former Minister of Finance this question: The last

time that we did this under a former administration, a former premier, that

money was passed on by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to Newfoundland and

Labrador Power, then Newfoundland and Labrador Power passed it on to the Public

Utilities Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Public Utilities Board passed it on to us. My question

is this: Isn't it a fact that for every dollar the provincial government has

given people in the tax break, the levees they have introduced on Hydro and

others will be passed back to every consumer in this Province on (inaudible)?

Isn't that a fact, and isn't that is what is going to take place over the

next several months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Leader of the

Opposition that if you have a budget which is well presented, carefully thought

out, and which responds to the needs of the people of the Province by both

providing for a tax break of $60 million this year - $42 million of which comes

from the provincial treasury - and provides for significant reinvestment, tens

of millions of dollars, in health care, that sometimes the smart thing to do,

one that demonstrates a degree of wisdom and maturity about the political

process, is to stand up and say: It is a pretty good budget, now let's get on

to other business. To stand and try and make, as the Leader of the Opposition is

trying to do, a sow's ear out of what is clearly a silk purse is silly and a

waste of time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am beat up over that comment.

Let me ask the Premier this question. Has he got assurances then from

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the extra levee that they have taken from

them that that won't be passed on to Newfoundland Power and all consumers?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now, it is! Extra dividends. They will be paying an

extra $85 million this year that they didn't pay last year. That won't be

passed on to consumers and that every person in this Province will not see an

increase in their electricity bills? Is that the guarantee this Premier and this

government got from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that instead of the Province

drawing down all the money that could have been drawn down - in fact, as most

thoughtful commentators pointed out yesterday, we deferred drawing down money we

could have drawn down. We could have registered a surplus this year in excess of

$100 million - $161 million to be exact - but instead we made many one-time

payments, many one-time purchases - in particular in the area of health care,

but in other areas as well - and beyond that we deferred taking down money this

year and instead pushed it into next year to ensure our continued fiscal

stability next year. It is the exact opposite of what the Leader of the

Opposition has suggested.

Finally, since this Administration has come to office we have negotiated with

Hydro-Quebec two new initiatives which have flowed more money to Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. The first is a recall of 127 megawatts of power under the

existing Upper Churchill contract, which last year flowed $27 million through

Hydro to the people of the Province; and the second is something called a

Guaranteed Winter Availability Contact which, as it matures, will flow another

$34 million a year to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to stand up and give

the suggestion that a tax break is going to be cancelled by an increase in

electricity rates, if he wants to try and do that and strain his own

credibility, he can, but I tell him it is simply not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have been here before, five years ago,

prior to this member coming into the House. We have been here, we have the tee

shirt, we have done it. Now the question is this, simply put. You have no

guarantee that these costs will not be passed on. That is what the Premier said.

I would like to ask him a question with respect to payroll tax. We called for

the elimination of the payroll tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Get real. I will not even respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier a question with respect to

the payroll tax. A number of people have been eliminated from the payroll tax

and we applaud it, I say to the Premier. In terms of where you have increased on

resource industries, did you consult with the resource industries where you have

doubled the payroll tax from 1 per cent to 2 per cent, such as on Abitibi,

fisheries companies, those people who yesterday the minister said are doing very

well? Is there going to be any adverse impact in terms of their commentary to

you based upon the increase in the payroll tax to them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is now

acknowledging that 85 per cent - 85 per cent - of businesses in Newfoundland and

Labrador will no longer be paying the payroll tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am glad to have that acknowledgment. Those who will

continue to pay are amongst the larger businesses, and as we can afford to take

it off them, we will. Beyond that, moving the rate being paid from 1 per cent to

2 per cent simply equalizes the rate for everybody in the Province.

The payroll tax was reduced from 2 per cent to 1 per cent in the 1990s when

the fishing industry was in great difficulty in this Province. By the way, so

was the forestry sector. Today the fishery sector has produced export sales in

excess of $1 billion. Crab and, as we know, shrimp are very high-value,

high-price products, and the forestry industry is enjoying its best prices ever

today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Finally, this recommendation to go from 1 per cent to 2 per cent was given to

government by a panel of labour, business and other outside sectors who made the

recommendations to this government.

One final point, if I can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: It is this party over here, with respect to electricity

prices - and by the way, we are wondering why you have not raised the question

yet - which says we have to build a transmission line from Labrador to

Newfoundland, no matter what the cost, and no matter what it does to electricity

prices in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Not this party taking that kind of silly position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Estimates here show that $31.7 million extra will be put into health care in

this year's Budget compared to last year's actual revised amount that was

spent. This money will be spread across all institutions, community health

boards, including of course the new areas that just came on this past couple of

years. Child welfare, community and corrective services and family

rehabilitative services are all in that pot. Hospital boards can expect, if they

are lucky, probably even to get $20 million of that amount.

I ask the minister: Does he think they can run the health care system that we

have now on that amount of money that they are allocating?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I might allow, in the supplementary, for the Opposition critic to

explain whether he thinks it can run or not. Because he is on the record in this

Legislature suggesting that there is $100 million already in our system that is

being wasted in health care alone, not like the Leader of the Opposition trying

to be cute. He can refer to Hansard on March 28, when the Member for Ferryland,

the former Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Health critic, in a heated

debate over health care, stated quite clearly for the record in this Legislature

that he feels and that party feels that there is $100 million in the health care

budget today being absolutely wasted, and that is his position. So maybe he can

answer his own question: Does he think there is enough money in the system to

adequately run all the components of health care, knowing that we are already

wasting $100 million, by his record -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister -

MR. GRIMES: - and we are going to put in $30 million more, maybe to waste

that too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maclean's magazine says 40 per cent of dollars spent in health care in

this country - $30 million. They say between $400 million and $500 million, the

survey with Maclean's magazine, I might add.

Trans City, I might tell him, spent $30-some million extra by giving it to a

higher bidder and we are still paying on lease fees to this day. We have

facilities in this Province under that contract, I say to the minister - in St.

Lawrence one-quarter of the beds never opened to this day - and we are still

paying on that debt. Add this and compound that over that time and that will get

you one-third of your money right there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Hospital boards give you a prioritized list of services

that government may have to cut if it cannot afford to pay for them. I ask the

minister: What services, with the money they are given now, are you going to

eliminate? And when are you going to do it?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased again to hear the line of questioning because now he has already

changed again from suggesting that there is $100 million wasted to saying that

we do not have enough money and we are going to have to cut out some services.

Again I am puzzled by the approach taken by the Opposition.

It seems a pretty straightforward choice. As a matter of fact, I have made

the offer, in all seriousness, to the member opposite. I said: Listen, I do

believe that you are serious person, that you have taken your job seriously in

the last few years, and that you have some real ideas about how to improve

health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have made the offer, Mr. Speaker, that if wants to come over on this side

of the floor - I would encourage the Premier and my colleagues to take him - I

would resign this position and he can become the Minister of Health and

Community Services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and he can tell the world where the $100 million is wasted

and what he is going to cut out of the system, Mr. Speaker, if he wants the job.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just so it is clear for the record, we are not giving up

$10 to take two cents, Mr. Speaker. There is no trade happening right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a final supplementary.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are giving up a superb minister to take no

cents or nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the people you left behind in the Department of Mines

and Energy are just as puzzled. When you had the Department of Education, they

are every bit as puzzled as you are, I might add. He wreaked devastation in the

departments, and the Premier knows quite well what I am talking about there, I

can tell you.

Now, Minister, once you allow for inflationary costs, there is less money in

the health care budget to operate it this year than there was last year. Boards

will have no choice but to run up deficits to pay for these services, and that

is well established. They can tell you that themselves, and they have said it.

I ask the minister: Where are you going to get the money, for instance next

year, now that you have drawn down $42 million of money that was allocated for

future funding?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only assume, using the logic that the Opposition is following today,

that the commentary with respect to my performance in other portfolios prior to

this is probably meant to be a compliment. I can assume that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: If we follow the same argument and the same logic as the rest

of the questions, I take it as a compliment, Mr. Speaker. In fact, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always listen carefully to the questions because I am always open to good

suggestions and good ideas that will be helpful to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. I am assuming - and I would like the record of Hansard to show

this clearly - that the Opposition Health critic just stated that, if he was the

Minister of Health, he would not draw down the full $44 million this year for

health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't ask that.

MR. GRIMES: Well, that is what you just said. You just said: What are you

going to do?

What I am assuming is that the position of the Official Opposition is that if

they were the government they would not draw the full $44 million. We would have

even bigger deficits in health care and elsewhere, and we would have even a

bigger problem to try to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, we will stand by our record and we will work with the boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

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

Minister of Education. Minister, your government approved $5.5 million to build

a new school in Old Perlican to serve students in the lower Trinity area. At

least three-quarters of the parents in the zone are opposed to busing their

children to that location and were never properly consulted before the decision

was made by the board.

Will your government, Minister, rescind the decision to spend $5.5 million on

a school which parents do not want, at least until all parents are properly

consulted and receive a full account of how their interest will be best served

by sending their children to this new school?

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the decision has been made to spend $5.5 million on a new school, but

the decision has not been taken which schools will close. The consultation has

not taken place yet. It will take place next week, and all of the concerned

parents will have the opportunity to be consulted. As a matter of fact, the

decision will be taken by the school board on April 11.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Dr. Rideout, Director of Education, has said: The new

school is happening. We are just waiting to conclude the catchment area. Do you

think the board will vote down this notice of motion when over $250,000 has gone

into this project already? That would be a waste of money.

Minister, is it your government's policy to literally put the cart before

the horse, to approve a school without knowing who is going in it?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I again inform the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne

that yes, a school will be built; $5.5 million has been allocated. The decision

has not been taken which schools will close. Consultation will take place with

any concerned parents who want to be consulted and to participate in that

decision. That will happen next week. The board will make a decision on April

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Dr. Rideout, Director of Avalon West: The

consultation process gives lots of time for parents' input. The board has

decided that meetings where dialogue takes place is unproductive.

Again, I ask you, Minister: Is the government going to allow this to

continue? Are you going to condone perhaps a wasteful expenditure of public

money?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that Dr. Rideout is an employee of

the board. The board has not made the decision. The board will consult with the

parents. The decision will be made by the board on April 11.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and concerns the development of our offshore

oil and gas. We have seen how few benefits have flowed to this Province from the

floating platform system for Terra Nova. Now we are faced with a second proposal

for a floating platform for White Rose which cannot develop our significant

offshore gas reserves and is certain to have less design and construction jobs

here than a GBS.

Given the presence of new players who want to bring both gas and oil ashore

now with significant construction and onshore industrial benefits, will his

government play an active role in this project to ensure that we will have an

oil and gas industry here onshore in our Province, or is he going to watch while

the oil industry treats Newfoundland and Labrador as an extraction point only

for oil and gas, and the last extraction point to pump gas into the Nova

Scotia-US pipeline when they get around to it?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, there is a process for a hearing to go to the C-NOPB.

All the issues that the hon. member has raised will be examined and at the end

of that process we will make an appropriate decision.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the minister and the government are depending

on the C-NOPB to look after the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador then I am

very worried, and I am sure most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are as well.

Because as we know, the C-NOPB has been proven to be a toothless tiger when it

comes to protecting the best interests of jobs and benefits for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Is this minister, and is this government, prepared to do anything to ensure

that the C-NOPB does its job? Is it prepared to use its veto power ultimately to

make sure that a proper job is done, to ensure that we have benefits in this

Province, an onshore oil and gas industry that benefits us, and not a jobless

growth with a gross domestic product based on the value of oil that we have

given away with very little in the terms of benefits?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NOPB is a forum where this information is brought forward. There are

proponents who would suggest that a gravity based system would, in the long run,

better facilitate the development of natural gas. That is something that will be

examined there. The evidence will be brought forward, C-NOPB will hear it, and

the record will come to us ultimately for a decision. When we have all the

information, and not like the hon. member, when we know all the facts, when we

are in a position to make a consideration and reflect on those to make an

appropriate judgement, we will do so, but we will not stand in the House and say

we prefer A to B when we don't know the facts supporting either.

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

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

My questions are to the President of Treasury Board. In January the

government made a grand orchestrated production when it gave a commitment to the

reclassification of nursing and social worker positions in the Province. Since

there was no specific mention of this commitment in the Budget yesterday, nor

was there any specific allocation of funds, and given the assumption that

reclassification should result in higher wage benefits, can we assume the

commitment made in January to reclassify these workers was more window dressing,

another way to keep nurses and social workers quiet for a few more months than

to address their real concerns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address my hon. colleague opposite and say to him that the

letter that was given to the nurses and the President of NAPE on February 17 by

this government indicated that we would conduct a full occupational study for

those professions. The time limit we gave at that time was August. We are in the

middle of doing a very comprehensive study. Although our Budget did not indicate

that there were funds available, we have within our fiscal framework an ability

to do that. Of course, we would not pre-judge or speculate on the outcome of

that classification review.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.

I listened in the lobby in the latter part of January when you gave the

public service pensioners a commitment that they would be very happy when the

news came forward in the Budget. How can you convince nurses and social workers

and other allied health care professionals that your commitment to them will be

any more believable and effective than your commitments and comments at the

public forum outside of the House were to the public service pensioners in that

meeting you had with them in January?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the commitment that we gave to nurses, social

workers and other health care professionals is one that we will live up to and

it is no different than the requests that we receive. We receive hundreds of

requests throughout the year for classification reviews. I can tell the member

opposite that the union is very comfortable with government's decision to

undertake this study. We will meet the commitments that are within this study

and we will deliver it on time.

Thank you.

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

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

In July 1998, Madam Minister, the nursing faculty at MUN submitted an

application for reclassification where job descriptions and qualifications

change dramatically in recent years. Your department to date has not even given

them the courtesy of a reply. Should all nurses, social workers and other allied

health care professionals be as skeptical of your current reclassification

commitments as those associated with the nursing faculty at MUN when you did not

even reply to their letter?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised here today to hear the line of

questioning from the member opposite. He has absolutely no questions from

yesterday's Budget to ask concerning the many things that happened yesterday

and the many announcements this government made.

All classification requests that are sent to Treasury Board are held in the

very strictest confidence and they are dealt with immediately. The reference

that the member opposite is making to the nurses in general has been provided.

Nurses are comfortable with the commitment that government has made. I would

suggest to the member opposite that he wait and see the outcome of that review.

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

There is time for one quick question.

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

My question today is for the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. In

section 3.10 of her latest report, the Auditor General condemned the government

for failing to go through a thorough approval process, get sufficient

information, or put proper security measures in place before approving loans and

investments under Development and Rural Renewal. Why did you allow your

department not to follow proper procedure, thereby losing some $60 million - and

I repeat that, $60 million - of taxpayers monies out the door?

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

MR. TULK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Member for Cape

St. Francis that we do take very seriously the work of the Auditor General. As a

matter of fact, we take her work so seriously that I think through the IEC this

year and through the -

PREMIER TOBIN: Through the budget process.

MR. TULK: - budget process - I hope you get back to the questions, and I

will tell you - we do respect her opinions, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, we

have increased the budget so that she can do the job that needs to be done to -

PREMIER TOBIN: Another $200,000.

MR. TULK: Another $200,000 to see that the job is done properly in this

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me also say to the hon. gentleman that if he

read the Budget yesterday, this great Budget which got such great praise from

around the Province, he will notice that we respect the opinion of the Auditor

General so much and are concerned so much that the SEDF that she talked about is

no longer in existence.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 273(3) of the Elections Act,

1991, I hereby table the Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Office on

Elections Finances for the period January 1 to December 31, 1998.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I'm supposed to give notice today, but I would

hope that both of the groups in the Opposition - I know the Leader of the

Opposition - well, I haven't had a chance to talk to the Leader of the NDP. I'm

naming the committees and I would hope that he would give notice for us to put

those and vote on them today.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the following committees be composed of the

following members:

Government Services Committee: Mr. Eddie Joyce, Member for Bay of Islands;

Mr. Harvey Hodder, Member for Waterford Valley; Mr. Ralph Wiseman, Member for

Topsail; Mr. Paul Shelley, Member for Baie Verte; Mr. Wally Anderson, Member for

Torngat Mountains; Mr. Jack Byrne, Member for Cape St. Francis; Mr. Tom Lush,

Member for Terra Nova.

Resource Committee: Mr. Bob Mercer, Member for Humber East; Mr. Roger

Fitzgerald, Member for Bonavista South; Ms Yvonne Jones, Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair; Mr. Ray Hunter, Member for Windsor-Springfield; Mr. Percy Barrett,

Member for Bellevue; Mr. Bob French, Member for Conception Bay South; Mr. Ralph

Wiseman, Member for Topsail.

Social Services Committee: Mr. George Sweeney, Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace; Ms Sheila Osborne, Member for St. John's West; Mr. Jim Walsh, Member

for Conception Bay East & Bell Island; Mr. Tom Hedderson, Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne; Mr. Gerald Smith, Member for Port au Port; Mr. Randy Collins,

Member for Labrador West; Mr. Gerald Reid, Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

Mr. Speaker, I would also move by leave:

(

a) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Government

Services Committee, and those are the same as they were last year: Finance,

Works, Services and Transportation, Government Services and Lands, Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Public

Service Commission;

(

b) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Social

Services Committee: Human Resources and Employment, Education, Health and

Community Services, Environment and Labour, Justice;

(

c) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Resource

Committee: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Tourism,

Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Technology; Mines and Energy;

Development and Rural Renewal.

By leave, I move those, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The second notice - there is just one motion, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Two motions? You want to put both motions now?

The second motion is the Heads of Expenditure referred to the Government

Services Committee.

All those in favor of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Petitions

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

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

I rise again today to present a petition which has about 100 names on it,

which brings the total number of people who have signed petitions thus far that

have been presented to the House to about 11,000 or more.

This petition is signed by some of the public service pensioners in the

Province and it says:

WHEREAS the government of this Province has historically protected its

pensioners against inflation by providing increases in pension benefits to

mirror those negotiated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public

Employees for its members currently employed by government;

THEREFORE we call upon the government to immediately meet with

representatives of NAPE to negotiate an increase for current pensioners and to

enter into negotiations with NAPE regarding indexation of current and future

pensions, with no increase in contributions.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, or the last time we met when we heard

petitions, I presented a petition as well. At that time we had about 100

signatures. There are another 100 signatures on this petition we have here

today.

The public service pensioners met in the lobby of this House in January with

the President of Treasury Board, and I happened to have been there when she met

these pensioners. They all gathered around the minister and she told them that

they should be happy with the good news that would be in the Budget.

In this particular case they looked forward to the Budget which was brought

down yesterday.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman signed that

petition?

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it is required that the member who presents a

petition sign it, and all requirements that are necessary for the petition have

been met. All of these matters have been attended to before the petition was

presented here.

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to reflect on and

probably rule, if ruling is appropriate, on the issue of whether or not somebody

who is purported to be a pensioner and now advocating by way of a private member's

bill on the issue of pensions is not somewhat in a conflict of interest

circumstance, and whether or not a presentation by that type of member in that

circumstance is appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

It happens that this petition comes from the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of Public Employees, from NAPE. I am not now a member of NAPE, have

never been a member of NAPE, and I doubt if I ever will be a member of NAPE.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure if I was not listening closer to the Speaker

in that regard but when I asked for a ruling on that point of order, whether or

not you took it under advisement or whether or not you did rule on the point of

order.

The point I am making is that, if not illegal, I am wondering to what extend

it may not be immoral for a person who is in receipt of a pension -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - a very generous pension, I would suspect, from the public

purse, from the Province, from all of the taxpayers of the Province, now

presenting a petition in effect on his own behalf and in his own interest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if it makes the member feel happier -

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

MR. H. HODDER: - I will present the petitions to the Premier and to other

members on that side who are also in receipt of pensions as they sit in this

House, and then they can present them.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, in order to bring complete transparency and

above-the-boardedness to this issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: Above-the boardedness? Is that a new word?

MR. MATTHEWS: - I am wondering if the hon. member won't commit here and

now to give his pension so that he can legitimately and transparently present

his petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, if the member allows, I can

re-present it and speak for three minutes on the petition. If he is the big

dipper, I am sure the Premier is the little dipper.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 1, and move that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole on Interim Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

I rise today to take

part in the debate on Interim Supply, a bill that comes

before this House as least once a year, usually before Budget Day, a time to tie

government over and to supply government cheques, if you would, to all its

employees and the many people out there who are depending on government cheques

and monies in order to support their families and survive themselves. I can

assure you that this side of the House will not cause any undo interruption in

that process.

It is time when many of us can stand and talk about any issue, since it is a

money bill, that pertains to our district, or any issue of concern that has been

brought forward to us as members of this House.

I suppose, when people bring forward their concerns and suggestions, they

bring them forward with the hope that maybe somebody in the decision-making

process on the other side of the House might listen and might pay attention to

some of their concerns and frustrations that they have been facing with living

in this Province today.

While we hear the Premier of the Province and the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal talk about the economy, and how well it is doing here in this

Province, and I heard the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal talk about

the central tiger, how vibrant the economy is in Newfoundland and Labrador,

especially in Central Newfoundland, I can assure you that there is certainly no

economic tiger happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador when it relates to

the economy moving at such a pace to see people working and people being able to

go out and access jobs.

I was surprised, and I asked the question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs here a couple of days ago. I asked him about his

meeting with the Minister of HRDC, the Hon. Jane Stewart, in his crusade to

Ottawa last week in order to take

part in a giant gala of Liberals gathered

there. The minister talked about the positive meeting he had with the Minister

of HRDC, and he was glowing about how concerned the minister was and how she was

coming to Newfoundland, and she was going to straighten out some of the problems

with the EI program. He made us believe, he sounded as though, she herself

thought it was unfair to have this buildup of $26 billion in an EI account with

so many people not being able to access work.

I don't know if anybody has read The Express . It is a publication

here in the Mount Pearl-St. John's area. It does not go to rural Newfoundland

and Labrador, I think. Maybe it is a good thing that it doesn't. If anybody

has not read The Express then maybe you should read the column in it that

talks about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' visit and his meeting

with the federal minister, his federal cousin in Ottawa, with HRD, when the

minister talks about: Probably, perhaps, one way we can solve the unemployment

problems here today is to have employers pay seasonal workers enough money

whereby they can save enough money to tide them over until they go to work

again.

Just imagine. Here we are with a minimum wage in this Province of $5.50 or

$5.75 per hour. What is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five dollars and fifty cents an hour.

MR. FITZGERALD: A minimum wage of $5.50 per hour in this Province. Most

of the people who are on minimum wage are working at seasonal jobs. Most

seasonal operators in this Province are only surviving, only existing, I say to

members opposite. What does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talk

about? He talks about: Maybe one of the solutions to the problem of unemployment

insurance is that we will go out and we will have those employers pay their

employees enough money that will tide them over until they can go to work again.

How much money would an employer have to pay? How much money would a

construction operator have to pay an employee in his fourteen or fifteen weeks'

work that he is fortunate enough to get, I suppose, or unfortunate enough. I'm

not so certain which word to use there. Mr. Chairman, how much money would he

have to pay him in order to tide him over for the other forty weeks of the year?

How unrealistic. This is coming from a minister we have asked to go to Ottawa

and solve some of the problems that we are seeing involved in this Province

today?

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture got up today and talked, in a

Ministerial Statement, about Fisheries Forum 2000, and said what a glowing

success it was. There were 300 people who attended here in St. John's the

Fisheries Forum 2000 to talk about what should be done in the fishery, what we

are doing wrong, what type of gear we should use, what type of boats we should

use, who is listening, who is not listening. What do you want, Mr. Fisherman?

I don't know how often the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture expects

fishermen and fish plant workers to come and tell their story. I don't know

how long those same people should be expected to come and tell their story

without some action being taken. Because there is no action being taken, I say

to members opposite. The same concerns, the same problems that were brought

forward back when Walter Carter was the Minister of Fisheries, then Bud Hulan,

and now the saviour, the old sixty-four eleven minister is there today still

talking about the same problems, still talking about the same concerns, and hasn't

done one thing in order to correct it.

The philosophy of the government has not changed since the old days: Keep

people humble, keep people begging, keep them coming back to you, and as long as

we can give you a few crumbs on the plate, as long as we can give you some hope

whereby you will keep coming back, then we will forever keep you humble, forever

keep you coming out to support us because there is some hope there, then maybe

that is the way that it should work. That is the philosophy of the people

opposite. It is wrong. It is wrong for that approach to be taken.

Only a few weeks ago I saw the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr.

Dhaliwal, come here to Newfoundland. He met with the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture and there was a big announcement made. There was a Memorandum of

Understanding signed. Now, just imagine, a Memorandum of Understanding. An

understanding to do what? A Memorandum of Understanding that they would work

together to try to solve the problems in the fishery of this Province, in the

fishery of Canada and in the fishery of the Atlantic? Why would you need

somebody to come to Newfoundland to sign an Memorandum of Understanding that you

work together? I always thought that this is what governments were all about.

Whether you are a federal government or a provincial government, you are put in

place to serve the same people, you are put in place to help the same people. I

do not know why the federal minister would feel obligated to come here and sign

a Memorandum of Understanding with his provincial cousin in order to solve some

of the problems in an industry that has devastated rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, you go out and you see what is happening in places like

Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, Duntara, Keels, Open Hall and Red Cliff, and

you hear the government say: It is not government's place to create economic

activity, it is not government's place to provide employment. That has to be

done by the private sector. Boys, it is about time you got realistic. It is

about time you started to realize that there is no such thing as the public

sector to drive the economy in many places of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Tell me, I say to the minister, what private sector is going to go in to a place

like Keels, Open Hall or Red Cliff and provide economic opportunity? The

government has to step in and help create an atmosphere, help create an

environment and provide some stimulus there in order to help the people survive

and continue to live where they want to live. It is not an option for everybody

to pack up and go to Toronto or to one of the western provinces. That is not an

option for everybody here.

While we continue to gloat - and we share government's pride when we talk

about the fishery having $1 billion in export value this year. We share in that

pride because it helps some of our people as well. There one thing we have to

remember. When we talk about the $1 billion and how successful this new

shellfish fishery is and what it means to this Province, just think back and ask

yourselves how many people are working in the industry today compared to what it

was in pre-1992. I am not saying what was happening back in pre-1992 was correct

and it was right. Sure there should have been changes made, sure there had to be

things done differently. We could not continue the way we were. By putting

forward the positive spin, we should also be reminded of the many people that

are not able to take

part in this industry and there has not been an alternative

offered in order for them to be able to survive and support their families.

Yesterday people we waiting with baited breath for the Budget to be

announced, hoping that there might be something there for them to give them a

little bit of hope. To get their mother or father into a senior citizens'

home, maybe to able to access home care, I say to the Minister, or get a few

extra hours of home care for their loved one. Maybe the minister cannot relate

to that. It is something that is foreign to him. I can tell you that not

everybody out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today has the ability of people

opposite to go out and hire people and pay for them to sit themselves in order

to look after their sick mom or dad or somebody else in their household.

The Minister of Health, and the former Minister of Health who is walking the

House now, knows full well the many times I have stood here and talked about the

need to have hospital beds or senior citizens' beds opened in this Province.

The rebuttal has always been: Even though there are ten beds in Bonavista we are

not going to open them because the waiting list in not long enough. Just

imagine, the waiting list is not long enough. Can you imagine a phone call

coming and somebody saying: I need to get my mother and my father into the

senior citizens home in Bonavista - there are ten vacant beds there - and the

member is saying: I am sorry, I cannot do anything to help you. Your mother and

father are not important because we need fourteen on the waiting list.

How silly. What a policy for government to have, I say to people opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not correct.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is true, I say to the minister. If you have one person

on a waiting list, and they need to go into a government institution, and if we

can afford to do it, then we should allow it to happen; not wait until there is

a buildup of fourteen and then pick somebody off the bottom or off the top. That

is not the way it should work.

The workers, union workers -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. leave.

CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted to continue to listen to the great comments by my colleague from

Bonavista South, who was just getting wound up, because he has so many issues in

his district and he brings them so powerfully to our caucus. In fact, at every

single caucus meeting, the Member for Bonavista South has to have a special time

when he can say: Here are the concerns of the people in my district, and home

care and care for people who need it is always at the top of his priority.

Mr. Chairman, I can say that representation in our caucus for those people

who are disadvantaged, for those people who need a hand up, and for those people

who need extra assistance, nobody in our caucus has a stronger consciousness

than the Member for Bonavista South. This member is a caring, sensitive

individual.

I see that the Minister of Fisheries would not give the Member for Bonavista

South leave to continue the dissertation that he was making on behalf of the

poor, and the people who are disadvantaged in his district. It is certainly

regrettable in this House when a member is standing and saying, on behalf of his

constituents, I want the government to listen, and then when a minister says no,

you cannot have leave because I do not want to listen to that kind of stuff,

that is indeed very regrettable.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side want to make some comments during the Interim

Supply. I note that during the Interim Supply thus far there has not been one

single speaker from the government side. When the minister introduced the bill,

the minister made a few preliminary comments, very preliminary, about three to

five minutes. Thus far, we have not had one single speaker on the government

side stand and support this Interim Supply Bill. Now, what does that say? Either

they are not convinced that they need this money - and if they do not get their

money by next week, they will say to the Opposition: Oh, by the way, we have to

have it by a certain date because we have to go and process the procedural

motions and get everything put in action so we can pay people who are on the

payroll. Not one single member, other than the Minister of Finance when he

introduced the bill, has stood and said why they need all that money in the

various categories.

Mr. Chairman, we have been anticipating all day when we sat here on Tuesday

that some member from the government side would stand up and say why we need

money in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, why we need money

in health, why we need all this money that is there, $1 billion of it, and why

it is needed in the various categories that are listed, but not one single

member stood.

When I see the Member for Bonavista South get up to make representation

behalf of his constituents, and say they he wants to make representation on

behalf of the people in his district who are in need, who have desperate

conditions that they live under, and they want to have help for their elderly,

help for their disadvantaged, then I see a minister say no, you cannot have

leave. What you are saying is not very important, apparently, is the message he

is communicating to my good colleague from Bonavista South.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we on this side again want to represent ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is what my colleague from Bonavista

South was trying to do when he was interrupted by procedural matters when he was

not allowed to speak.

Mr. Chairman, when I finish in another couple of minutes, I am hoping that

someone on the government side will have the courage, will have the

responsibility, to rise. Maybe a minister will rise. Maybe a minister will say

this is why we need this Interim Supply. To date, not one single minister has

risen in their place, other than the Minister of Finance; not one single

backbencher has gotten up and said why you need the money. There has been no

comment whatsoever, so we have a government that is saying to the Opposition

that we are going to merely put the motions to the House, we are not going to

support them. All that they are doing is sitting there, occupying places, and we

have no comments whatsoever by people who are in the back benches, by the

Cabinet ministers, justifying why we should vote for this Interim Supply motion.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is very regrettable, because on Tuesday afternoon

there were eight opportunities for someone on the government side to stand up.

There were eight chances on Tuesday afternoon, and not one single member on the

government side stood in their place to stand up and justify why they need this

money. They did not support their own motion. What does that say about the

government? They are either lethargic, disinterested, don't know what it is

all about, have lost interest in the procedures of this House, or else they are

simply saying: Well, we can just sit on our backsides because when the time

comes to vote we will do whatever the Government House Leader tells us to do and

we will stand in our places. In the meantime, they will just simply do nothing.

MR. J. BYRNE: Harvey, they couldn't care less.

MR. H. HODDER: My good colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the

finance critic, says it shows that they don't care what happens in this

particular matter. I believe the Member for Cape St. Francis is nearer to the

truth than many would have us believe.

I am sure the Minister of Fisheries will be anxious to get up in his place

and show why he needs money in Interim Supply for his department. I am sure

that, when the time comes, he will justify as well why he would not give the

Member for Bonavista South some leave so he could continue to represent the good

people of Bonavista South in this Legislature in the way he usually does, very

forcefully, very aggressively, standing up for the ordinary person. Certainly

his constituents are number one in his mandate and he does a very find job.

I look forward to again being able to hear, in the near future, the Member

for Bonavista South continue his address in this House and I thank you very

much.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: There you go. It is guaranteed to help. That's right, I

agree with you.

I listened to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, and there has to be

something moving, some movement taking place, because he didn't get up and

talk about anything in relation to the Budget, anything in relation to his

speech, but what the Member for Bonavista South said, and the contribution he

makes to his district and to the less advantaged people in the Province, now

that sends a message. He is either assuming there is going to be a leadership

debate coming up some time in the year 2000 and he is positioning himself for

some delegates, but I can assure the hon. member one thing -

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, there is no leadership on the move in this

Party, but I would say if there was, my chances of winning are a lot better than

his chances of winning on that side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I didn't say there was a leadership debate

upcoming. What I said was that he is assuming there is going to be one coming

up. I didn't say there was one coming up, but I can assure the hon. member one

thing, one thing right here and now this afternoon, of all members on the

opposite side, he is the one who stands the least chance of winning. Let me say

to the hon. member, he shouldn't get too proud, he shouldn't stick the chest

out too far, because there are a lot of fellows, a lot of members opposite - the

Member for St. John's South, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne - young

people up-and-coming who have a lot more, new, fresh thoughts than the hon.

Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I have to rise again because I am anxious to

get the member's notes and his press conference notes when he called a press

conference to announce that he wasn't going to run. I want to have those notes

so that when the time comes I can call a similar conference to announce that I

am not going to run. Maybe he can send over the same notes he used so I can

reuse them, if need be. I don't think that the member here has any interest in

that kind of (inaudible). We have a great leader, a young leader, a leader who

is going to carry us into victory, and that is the only concern that the

Minister of Fisheries has. Because he is afraid that we will hang on to this

leader and this leader is going to lead us to victory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Let me say to the Opposition House Leader that he knows what

it is like to get run over. You know what all of that is about, sir. Let me say

to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley once again: You don't get on the track

because you wouldn't even see the train coming. It would just swoop over you.

Let's get back to the issue at hand. The Member for Bonavista South made a

number of comments today. He made some comments when I gave the Ministerial

Statement. When he made his comments he talked about no action in the fishery in

the Province. He said it again, that we are not taking any action.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never?

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. He mentioned that on two or three occasions in his

ten minute debate.

MR. FITZGERALD: You called a meeting to protect yourself from the small

boat owners. You know why you called it. That is why I referred to you as the

sixty-four eleven minister.

MR. EFFORD: There is a funny thing about it, Mr. Chairman. I go out to

the District of Port de Grave, get angry, and I am the minister of the small

boat fishermen. I go down to a community where there are small boat fishermen

and you called and accused as the minister of sixty-four foot elevens.

MR. FITZGERALD: They are all right.

MR. EFFORD: They are all right. There you go.

Let's compare the fishery of today to the fishery of the past. Let me give

you some statistics on the fishery of today and the fishery of the past.

MR. FITZGERALD: What you should do is talk about the issues that came

forward since you have been minister and talk about the ones that have been

solved, minister.

MR. EFFORD: The what?

MR. FITZGERALD: Talk about some of the issues, like boat size. Talk about

the issues of gear sizes.

MR. EFFORD: That is what I am going to talk about.

MR. FITZGERALD: Talk about the issues like the type of gear you are

allowed to use. Talk about the issues on the sale of the blueback seals. Talk

about all those issues. You tell me what you have brought to the table in order

to solve those problems and how many of them have been solved. That is just a

few that I rhymed off the top of my head.

MR. EFFORD: Are you ready now?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, go ahead.

MR. EFFORD: Give me a minute or two and I will.

Let's talk about 1995. I was appointed minister in 1996.

MR. FITZGERALD: You weren't the minister in 1995.

MR. EFFORD: Let me give you some numbers. Peak employment in the fish

processing in 1995 was 7,500 people. In 1999, there were 16,700 people employed.

There is an increase of approximately 10,000 people employed in the processing

sector in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1999. I remember

in 1992 when the moratorium was called by the then-Minister of Fisheries, John

Crosby, and the comments made around the Province was: She is gone, boy, she is

gone, she is all over, boys, we are all going to give up.

Well, we have gone from a moratorium in 1992 to a $1 billion industry in

1999, and growing, Mr. Chairman. Keep on growing. What are the changes in

attitudes in the fishing industry today compared to then? In the fishing

industry in 1992 everybody had it all given up. What have I done since I became

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture? What is one of the things that was

lacking in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador? Respect. Respect

for the fishing industry, respect for the fish itself. There was a lack of

respect for the marketplace. What have we done? We have changed the attitude of

the fisherman in this Province and everybody in the fishing industry where we

are not producing a second, third, or fourth quality product; we are producing a

supreme quality product for the first time in the history of the Province which

is beneficial to everybody in this industry.

MR. FITZGERALD: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister a question. If he is

producing this great quality product he is talking about today, how can he

respond to my question, which will be: How come 70 per cent of the cod caught in

3PS last year shipped out in cod block, the lowest form of package that you can

put forward in the market today?

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I will answer the question.

In 1996-1997, we came forth with a quality initiative program for all species

of fish. We emphasized the need to harvest a top quality product of fish in this

Province, for all species. We emphasized that it is not only the responsibility

of the people in the boats, it is the responsibility of the people who unload

the fish, the people who truck the fish, the processors, everybody from the time

the fish comes out of the water until it hits the marketplace. Everybody must

play a role.

The one thing that you cannot do a lot about is the temperature of the water.

If a fish comes out of that water, if it is such a texture because of the high

temperatures, then there is not a lot you can do about it except close a

particular fishery. Closing a fishery in a time of the year when the temperature

of water is not conducive to bringing in a quality product must be done. We

certainly did that in 1998. In 1999 in 3PS one of the problems was that the

temperature of the water caused the meat of the fish to break down.

The other thing that is causing a major problem out there is gill nets. I

have been a strong opponent to gill nets from day one. Back in the 1950s, when I

fished with my father, I said there is no way anybody should be allowed to use

gill nets. The argument was being made day after day, week after week, that gill

nets can be fished responsibly. I have not seen any evidence of gill nets being

fished responsibly in the fishery. Because if you have 1,000 gill nets in the

water and 50 per cent of those are used the way fisherman say they can use them,

in order to bring in fish you will always get a percentage of the fisherman not

doing what is right.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave denied.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on the Interim bill,

in particular with regard to education. I notice that there is a fair amount of

money put aside to prepare, I assume, for next year's school year. It is kind

of worrisome when I look at the preparation for next year. The report that was

promised for February that would be duly debated prior to the Budget did not

appear. The Williams-Sparks report has been delayed until the end of this month

- a little later on next year. It is worrisome because a delay of this nature

certainly indicates that the government is not prepared to more forward with

initiatives that are certainly needed at this particular time.

I go back to 1992 when the original Williams report was released. There was

great hype over that particular report because with its 200-plus recommendations

it certainly gave this Province an opportunity to leap ahead in education, to be

on the leading edge. I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that this was in 1992, eight

years ago. I would say to this House that the majority of those recommendations

have fallen to the wayside, and had that report been given the due that it

should have been we would not be in the state we are in at this particular time

regarding education.

It is not only the Williams Report, because during the 1990s there were

numerous reports that were brought forth regarding education. I reference, in

particular, the Canning Report, crisis in the classroom from the NLTA and other

reports as well that clearly set direction as to where the education system in

Newfoundland should indeed be going at this particular time.

Unfortunately, these reports have literally disappeared and are collecting

dust as we have to deal with yet another report in the year 2000. If indeed the

recommendations of this report, which is coming out at the end of this month,

are not actioned as quickly as the 1992 one, I guess we will be here well into

the next century before we get the recommendations implemented that certainly

need to be implemented. These reports are indeed very important because they

certainly should be actioned. It is costly enough to get them done, but it is

more costly not to have the recommendations that are contained in them actioned.

Education in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly has changed and continues to

change, but when we talk about reform it is quite obvious to many that the

reform of the 1990s was simply reform regarding restructuring. The curriculum

development that was promised in the early 1990s certainly did not materialize

as we turn into the twenty-first century. Strong curriculum is necessary in

order for true reform to take place. The curriculum is the heart of education

because without a proper curriculum that caters to, or reflects the needs of,

the students at this particular time, if it is not there, no matter what you do,

no matter how you do it, the reform is not going to take place, the students who

are going through the particular K-XII system will not be actioned.

Regarding curriculum development, I believe three years ago when my oldest

daughter was entering high school - she is graduating now - we were told, as

parents, that the new high school curriculum would be what she would go through.

It was a reorganized high school. The Level Is coming in three years ago were

told that they would graduate under those regulations. That was three years ago.

To date, that reorganized curriculum for the most part remains on the shelf. My

daughter will be graduating this year and she will be graduating under the old

regulations. The names of the courses may be changed but the same courses

remain.

Again, I say to this House that curriculum development is a key to ensuring

that the students of this Province are receiving the instruction, the delivery

of education, that is most important. The times have certainly changed. I, as an

educator for something like twenty years, saw tremendous changes since I began

teaching until last year as I took my seat in this House. The changes have not

been addressed, especially with regard to curriculum development. It is vital

that this government move quickly to make sure that the curriculum is a sound

curriculum, a curriculum that truly reflects where we should be going at this

particular time.

The math program, for example, was to be reorganized under that new high

school program and three years later we have but one course up and running. It

was interesting the other day to hear the Minister of Education talk about

providing graphic calculators to the high schools. That is ten years too late.

The high schools throughout this Province, over the last ten years, have been

doing everything they can through fundraising, through scrimping, through

savings, to try to get a graphic calculator for the instructor, the teacher, let

alone for the class.

Just the other day a colleague of mine had to go out and purchase graphic

calculators because the courses that are now being implemented - the minister

had no choice, because the courses that are implemented in the math program

require a graphic calculator.

This tells me, and should tell others, how education has changed; because ten

years ago, fifteen years ago, it would be the textbook that we were talking

about, but in this particular math program it is based around the graphic

calculator. It is so important that we realize that there are no such thing as

givens; that the government, Department of Education, have to be sure that they

are getting into the schools and providing the tools - as the textbooks are

tools, as the graphic calculators are tools and so on - that these tools are

available.

The state of our schools is yet another need that certainly, certainly needs

to be addressed. We have heard and I have seen situations around this Province

where our schools have been allowed to deteriorate to a point that it is a

wonder they can be brought back up to standard again. I talk about, in

particular, the maintenance on our buildings, and not only the maintenance but

the repair of emergencies such as leaky roofs.

I stood in Ascension Collegiate the other night and was told that building -

and it is a great building, a great school - has been leaking since the

beginning of the school year, into last summer, that the tiles are being

damaged, and that the students of that school have to step around garbage

buckets full of water when there is a rain storm. This is not acceptable,

because we know that in our own homes -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: Leave denied.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: There is such vigor and excitement over there - goodness!

AN HON. MEMBER: All happy with the Budget.

MR. EFFORD: All happy with the Budget. They should be; it is a great

Budget. It is the best Budget since Confederation.

Let's get back to the fishery because that is the good news, from where I

sit, in Newfoundland and Labrador - the revitalization of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, the fishery - but we have some concerns in the fishery. We have some

challenges.

The hon. Member for Bonavista South made a couple of comments that I cannot

argue with or disagree with, and one of them was the vessel size. I have said

that here in this House of Assembly on many occasions. I have said it publicly

on many occasions, and I am on record writing federal ministers; Minister

Mifflin, Minister Anderson and the present minister. I have some good news about

the vessel replacement program, because I met recently with the Coast Guards.

All of us, collectively in this Province, are concerned about the safety. I have

said to the federal minister in Ottawa, and I have said to the Coast Guard

officials, my worst fears could come true any day in a freak storm, when we

could get a call that there is one, two, three, four or five crews lost.

MR. FITZGERALD: It should be with the Coast Guard and not with DFO.

MR. EFFORD: Well it is, actually; that is what I am getting into.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: I'm getting into the issue here, because what we have done

- the fishery has changed over the last seven or eight years. What was once

considered a total inshore fishery, which is what the boats were built for, up

to sixty-four feet, eleven inches, they were built for the inshore fishery, but

with the changing fishery, and now particularly the shellfish industry, we have

driven those boats, that were really inshore boats, off to where the large

trawlers fished; all up through the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Those boats

that were built and designed for the inshore are now off 250 miles to 350 miles

on the Grand Banks, and that is a dangerous situation.

We have examples of forty-five, forty-eight foot boats fishing off Labrador

last year in the shrimp fishery. They should not be engaged in the shrimp

fishery in those types of boats, and in particular at that time of year; not any

time of the year but in particular that time of the year.

As an example, one time last year a forty-five foot boat was dragging its

shrimp

gear along the bottom, hooked into a rock, brought the boat right back down,

and luckily there was another boat close by and saved the crew.

The Coast Guard now is involved from a safety and comfort issue - a safety

issue. They have already had meetings here in St. John's, in fact, in the last

two weeks. Minister Dhaliwal has committed to having his staff look into the

vessel size from a safety and comfort issue alone, apart from a fishing issue.

The one thing we do not have to worry about now is, the fishery is not a

competitive fishery any more. Pretty well all species of fishery are IQs, so if

an individual fisherman has a fifty-foot boat or a sixty-foot boat, he has an IQ

of crab, pretty well has his quota of cod, they know the number of pounds of

shrimp they are going to catch in any given season within reason... In other

words, it is not a competitive fishery. It cannot be a destructive fishery

because they have a larger boat. So the size of the boat should be based on a

fisherman's own ability to raise the necessary financing to build a boat that

he deems necessary to bring in a quality product, so he can have safety and

comfort -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: How come you never gave any money to the Liberal Party,

all your money?

MR. EFFORD: For safety and comfort, Chairman. Can you imagine fourteen

fishermen aboard a scallop boat, sixty-four feet, eleven inches, on the Grand

Banks for twelve to fifteen days? It is not healthy. There is no comfort there

and it is certainly not safe.

I have the confidence now that we have the attention of the Coast Guard

officials, we have the attention of Fisheries and Oceans, and hopefully when the

public consultation takes place it will be supported by the industry as a whole

here in Newfoundland; because I have had some objections placed by fishermen

themselves, for whatever reason I do not understand. When I made the comments:

Well, we had better not allow bigger boats because if we allow bigger boats I

may lose some of my quota.

Conservation signs, conservation principles, and people sticking to what is

best for the industry in the long term can be dealt with without worrying about

what size boat a fisherman has.

If we are going to expand our fishery and we are going to diversify the

fishery into a means, giving people in the industry an opportune or advantage to

earn a reasonable income, then we have to change the policy of the past. The

policies have to suit the fishery of the day and the fishery of the future.

Now, I do not think for one second that changing that policy will mean that

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian will have a sixty-five, seventy-five or

eighty-five foot boat. I think what you will see in the small boat fishery is

that they will get boats the size they need to conduct the fishery within their

limits.

One of the arguments I had put before me last week when I said there should

be no gill net fishery or, the next step, if there is going to be a gill net

fishery, that the fishermen should bring back the gill nets the same day as they

leave the harbour. They should bring back the fish and nets at the same time.

The fishermen made the argument that we cannot do that because our boats are

only twenty-five feet, twenty-six feet, twenty-seven feet long. They are not big

enough to bring back the nets and the fish the same day. I couldn't believe

that argument could be made, so naturally I said: If your boats are not big

enough, why don't you use a hook-and-line fishery.

I believe if the vessel replacement program was changed, those fishermen

would have a boat the size they need to conduct a good, professional fishery,

which means being able to bring in a quality product, to be able to carry the

necessary tools to do what they can do out there in the fishing industry. In

order for the fishing industry to be productive in the future, we have to

change. We have to change our policies federally and provincially to meet the

needs of the fishermen today, and we have to make sure that every time a policy

is changed, regardless of what that policy is , it is based on the long-term

interest of the fishery, and that they have a long-term vision and not a

short-term vision.

The one thing that we will always apply is conservation. Conservation will be

applied in every single instance. No more should we ever give into the pressures

of individual industries, individual sectors of the fishery, and to apply the

needs of fishermen against the needs of science. That is what caused the

collapse of the fishery in the past and in no way, while I am Minister of

Fisheries, will I ever support or give into the pressures of individual groups.

Yes, the small boat fishermen get angry with me. Yes, the larger boats get

angry. That is because all they are viewing is what they need today. As

minister, I have to make a decision on what is best for the interest in the

industry for the long-term and not just what one small group or one individual

wants to get out of the industry.

I think when you canvas all of the fishermen in the Province you will find

very clearly that the greater majority of the fishermen do not ever want to go

back to where we were pre-1992, or the suffering they had since 1992. They want

to cooperate, and they want to make decisions and make policies, be proud of

making policies, based on their best interest.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, last week at the Fisheries Forum 2000 here in St.

John's it was clearly evident that all of the fishermen who participated in

that conference spoke the same words: We want to play a role in developing a

policy that is sound and good for the long-term in the fishery. We want to

listen to the scientists. We want to cooperate with industry as a whole. We do

not want to participate in an industry that is based on greed and selfishness.

We want it based on good, sound policy and good, sound science. Well, anybody

who attended that conference last week has to feel good.

People now realize that we made a lot of mistakes in the past. We do not want

to make or repeat any of those mistakes in the future. All we want to do with

the past is look to the past from a learning position, not be a critical

position but a learning position. Learn what we did not do right, and ensure

that the policies we develop in the future are the policies that are based on

good, sound investment, deriving a good income and the maximum benefits for all

of the people in the Province.

The one thing that I have been telling fishermen in this Province is: That

resource does not belong to the fishermen. A fisherman has a privilege to hold a

license and to be able to catch that species of fish. That resource belongs to

the people, all people, of Newfoundland and Labrador. Wherever possible, all

people in Newfoundland and Labrador should benefit from the fishing industry and

have an input into the fishing industry of the future.

I will say it again: Any fisher person, any fisherman, who holds a license to

catch a species of fish, it is a privilege to be able to do that. While those

people who hold a license conduct a fishery in a professional manner, there are

thousands of people outside who would like to have the opportunity to do it, but

you cannot do that. You cannot expand the fishery to the numbers that we had

pre-1992, because if you did that you would collapse it the same way as we

collapsed it in the past.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

I give leave to the hon. Member for Bonavista South. He wants to respond.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can give leave. I don't need your leave for that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just stand to say a few more words on Interim Supply. I welcome the news

that the minister has brought forward when it comes to vessel replacement. The

minister is saying that he has heard some things from the industry that he might

have some concern with as far as vessel replacement. I have heard nothing but

common sense from the industry. The people now fishing less than the thirty-four

feet, eleven inch boats in the inshore fishery are not out looking to buy and

purchase sixty-five foot longliners. They are not going out and looking for

fifty-five foot boats. They are looking to purchase a boat of a size where they

can go out and exercise their activity with some degree of comfort and safety.

We must be the laughing stock of the nation; we have to be. When you go down

to places like Bonavista, the Marine Centre, you go in there and look and see a

fifty-five foot, eleven inch boat cut in two, chopped in the middle, taking two

feet, three feet, four feet, or five feet out of that boat in order to allow

people to go and fish. We have to be the laughing stock of the nation.

The minister talks about how he has gone and concurred with the former of

Minister of Fisheries, and the former Minister of Fisheries, and this Minister

of Fisheries and Oceans, because that is where the decision has to come from.

There is no doubt about that. That is where the decision has to come from. I

think we have to take some responsibility here in this House as well. I think it

is about time that we started doing some things.

If we as legislators, and if we are sincere about what we are talking about

here, maybe we should start introducing our own legislation when it comes to

vessel size and when it comes to fishing activity. We should put our legislation

out to the forefront and let it be examined by all Canadians. If the federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wants to respond and say: No, you are not

allowed to do it, no, we are not allowing you as the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to introduce legislation to make this industry more viable and have

it carried out in a safer way, then maybe we can put them up on the pedestal and

say: Look, how silly is this piece of legislation that you people have brought

forward in order to inhibit our fishermen to be able to go out and fish with

some degree of comfort and safety.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the size of the motor.

MR. FITZGERALD: You have been in Ottawa since 1989. I suggest you change

it. You have had lots of time to change it. If we are going to go back and look

at the past, maybe we can remember your former leader when he wanted to burn all

the boats. Maybe we can go back and talk about that, I say to the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Your idol, your mentor.

The minister talks about the quality of fish. That is very important. There

is nobody here on this side who will deny or argue that if we are going to

compete and if we are going to be there and stand the test of other provinces in

the marketplace, then we are going to have to produce a good quality product.

There is nobody arguing against that. Many things that have happened in the past

have to be changed. We have gone too long and we have gone too far. It is time

we looked back and realized what the market is demanding.

Look at where we have come from. We had a moratorium on the groundfishery in

this Province in 1992. It made it unlawful for fishermen to go out and carry out

an occupation, take

part in an industry, that they normally took

part in in

order to support their families and earn a living. When you look at this

particular industry starting to come back with a 10,000 ton cod allocation in

3PS, then it went to 20,000 tons, then it went to 30,000 tons. Just last year

you look at a 30,000 ton allocation of cod in 3PS, 9,000 tons on the Northeast

Coast, around the perimeter of our Province, that once had a quota in excess of

860,000 tons of cod fish that was allowed to get caught.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. FITZGERALD: In the perimeters off the coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador, 860,000 tons back in the pre-moratorium days, I say to the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal. Now you see a quota this year of 39,000 tons, and

you see 70 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that done?

MR. FITZGERALD: In the pre-moratorium days. I don't care who takes the

blame, I wasn't a part of it. If you are going to start pointing fingers there

are lots of people to point them at.

You see the fishery in this Province, Mr. Chairman, coming back now. The

minister talks about quality and I will repeat for the minister what I said in

his absence, that nobody will argue against that. If we are going to compete and

going to go make this industry a viable industry to be there to support rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to be cognizant of it.

When you see - and I said it to the minister - 70 per cent of the cod that

was caught and marketed last year in 3PS sent out of this Province in cod block,

there is something wrong. There is somebody not doing what they are supposed to

do. Just imagine, 70 per cent of a very limited fishery, 39,000 tons, was

allowed to be sent out of this Province last year in the lowest form of a

product, demanding the lowest price on the marketplace, packed in the quickest

way, put into a pack that requires no quality whatsoever, cut up and put forward

on the marketplace for a pittance, I say to the minister. We expect to solve the

economy problems of our Province and our country on the fishery? Well, somebody

has to give a new direction, somebody has to step in and look at what went

wrong.

The minister talked about closing the fishery down at certain times. He did

that last year. He closed the fishery down at a certain time which nobody had

any problem with. Maybe what the minister should look at is closing it down for

a certain time with gill nets and allow fishing to continue with hook and line,

because there is no problem. In my conversation with fisherman there is no

problem with fish being caught with hook and line in the time of the year that

minister wanted the fishery closed down and left people idle on the shores of

this Province. There is no need for it.

The minister got up and gloated about how many people are working in the

industry now. I forget what figure he used because it was an figure that may

have not been incorrect, but it was certainly not an accurate figure. What I

want to say the minister is this. If he is going to compare the number of people

working today in the fishery with what happened in 1992, I suggest he look at

the number of days worked in this particular industry. There is a vast

difference in the number of days worked in this industry, the number of hours

worked in this industry today, and what it was back in 1992. The minister talks

about the rejuvenation of all those people going to work.

It was only a few months ago the minister was on television talking about his

great concern and his great fear that he was not going to be able to find enough

people to work in this industry. He had a great fear. He was frightened to death

that there were not going to be enough people to go to work in the fishing

industry.

MR. EFFORD: When?

MR. FITZGERALD: Don't you be so silly! Mr. Chairman, there is a good

reason, I say, and it is not for the reasons that the minister gave. The

minister tried to make you believe that here we have an industry today that is

employing so many people that everybody will be back to work and nobody will be

without a job and we will have to beg people to come back.

MR. EFFORD: That is not going to (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That was what you portrayed, I say to the minister. He

was going to have to go out beating the bushes looking for people to go to work.

Mr. Chairman, the truth is he probably will have to be out looking for people to

go to work, but the reason he will be out looking for them is because he will

have them all driven out of this Province and up in Alberta and British Columbia

and those places.

The other truth of it is that when he sat on that same side of the House when

he had a chance to allow people to retire with a little bit of dignity by

lowering the retirement age to a level to where people could have retired with

some dignity and allow younger people to take

part in the industry - it would

have cost him thirty cents on every dollar that he put forward - he turned his

back on it and walked away and would not take

part in it.

Those are the reasons that you are going to find if there is a problem with

getting people to go to work. It is not going to be a situation where there will

not be enough people to go to work because there are so many opportunities in

the industry. There will be a problem because he will have driven so many people

out of this Province that there may not be as many young people here to work.

CHAIR (Walsh) : Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have never in my fifteen years in this House heard such a distortion of the

facts as what that hon. member just stood in his place in the House and said. I

have heard some debates in this House in fifteen years, but I have never heard

such a distortion of the facts as he just presented to this House.

Let me correct the hon. member on exactly what I said. First of all, I said

rural Newfoundland and Labrador has a declining population in many communities.

If you looked at the average age of the people working in fish plants today and

the fact that the young people are leaving the rural communities, where will we

get the workers in the fish plants in the next decade? There is going to be a

real problem in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because our young people are not

staying here. If the average age of fish plant workers today is in excess of

forty years of age, in another ten or fifteen years down the road who is going

to work in the fish plants?

I did not say that we have a shortage of fish plant workers in the Province

today. I never ever said that, and the hon. member know full well I did not say

that. So for any member to get up in this House today and say what he just said,

is a misrepresentation of the facts. He should stand and apologize, and correct

what he just said. It is wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, there will be a problem. Yes, that's a fact. They had

to come from my district to work up in the hon. member's district because

there were not enough workers to go into the plants.

You take a place like the Northern Peninsula where the young people are not

staying in the communities. What is going to happen ten or fifteen years down

the road when the present employees come up to retirement age? There is not

going to be enough there, and we had better start planning for the future.

First of all, what we have to do is look at every opportunity in that ocean.

There is more in that ocean than crab, there is more in that ocean than shrimp

and there is certainly more than the traditional species we have caught. We have

to have a vision in that ocean and look at the value of that resource, the value

of all of those species, of all of those resources, and we have to develop the

markets to sell those species; but the first thing we have to do is get

fishermen to invest their time into researching underutilized species.

The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, as a true example, can

attest to what is happening in the underutilized species in a little fish plant

on Bell Island; the best kept secret in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-five.

MR. EFFORD: Sixty-five people having full-time employment working with

underutilized species; sea urchins. Sixty-five people working in underutilized

species, pretty well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since October

MR. EFFORD: Since October, and most of them will probably have full-time

employment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-odd.

MR. EFFORD: Forty-odd people will have full-time employment in that

plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: In excess of forty people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: That's a little bit of a Port de Grave twang, and I am sure

the hon. member has a few twangs like that on the Southern Shore. Now I have

lost my train of thought.

In all seriousness, using Bell Island for an example, there is no reason why

we couldn't have several more of those aroun